I was recently informed that Global Warming is a made-up hoax. The person based his argument on the verse,
“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”
He preached that because the earth belongs to God, only prideful fallen man would think he was powerful enough to mess it up. The earth is God’s property—dare we think He will allow man to mess it up?
I kept my unimpressed responses to myself (well, mostly). But I couldn’t help but think that just as the earth is the Lord’s, so is mankind. Yet God has allowed us to screw up. With the Fall, everything was screwed up—not just humankind, but the earth as well.
Romans talks about all of creation groaning for the revealing of the sons of God, as if it is in great pain until those who shine God’s glory are able to fully glow. And if God refuses to let us destroy His creation, will somebody tell me why we’re only supposed to eat one fish per month from the Great Lakes area? And are there any Gulag survivors who want to explain why God supposedly refuses to let us harm His earth, yet allows us harm His humans?
The “end of the world is nigh” part of me (it’s that Dispensationalist upbringing) can’t help but think it would be fitting to have us destroy the world ourselves. You know, the verses about the globe being burned up and a new heaven and a new earth made in it’s place. So many times, we’d pictured an angry God lighting a match. What if all He really does is stand back and let the race of Adam do what it does best?
I’m trying to look objectively at the arguments and information from both sides, and the facts that I see make me…want to continue being proactive about protecting our environment. If the Global Warming folks are wrong, no big deal. But if they’re right, and we were just sitting on our rear ends letting our children’s world become a living nightmare, then that’s a problem.
Sure, it would be GREAT if we could continue our high-energy lifestyles without any fear of reprisal, without any cost. I don’t fault anyone for thinking that—it’s difficult to enjoy luxury, thinking it will only continue, and then learn that a dreadful fee could be charged—that the pleasures were not free after all. But since the bill collecter has yet to show up, it’s much easier to think he never will, or, even better, that someone just made him up.
Posted by chewymom on February 14, 2007 at 10:12 am
YES!!! See, here’s my problem with the anti-global-warming view (among other views). What about where we are told to have dominion over the earth? Most people take that to mean that hunting is good because we’re taking DOMINION over those animals, dad-gum-it! But what if the picture we really are supposed to see is that we are to gently care for the earth? I mean, hello!!!! Which is more fitting with God’s character? For Him to say, “I have lovingly created the earth, now go and rule it with an iron fist–rape it, plunder it, and kill the animals?” Or to say, “I have lovingly created the earth, now care for it tenderly. Walk softly, be gentle with it, keep things in balance. Don’t be wasteful–recycle. Don’t be concerned with your own convenience only, but take care not to pollute and overuse it’s resources.” Even if the global-warming folks are wrong, it is a SIN that Christians are the most careless with the thing they believe was created just for them (as opposed to those who believe a BANG made us, and who treat the earth with great care and love, as though it is a precious treasure). What’s wrong with this picture?
Sorry–got on a tanget on your blog….This is a hot button for me, ya think?
Posted by Carla on February 14, 2007 at 10:12 am
Hmmm. I don’t particularly buy into global warming a la Al Gore. I do think things are changing on the earth and have varying theories and opinions on why.
.
I DO, however, feel like sometimes Christians try so hard to separate themselves from the “world” that they miss the boat on some things. It isn’t “buying into a worldly philosophy” to be responsible. In our case it has included the usual reducing, recycling, composting and reusing because it is an easy way for us to “do our part”. I use environmentally responsible cleaning products not because I’ve bought into a lie, but because it’s a good way to be a good steward of the earth and of the young (and old!) lungs in our home.
.
It makes me shake my head to realize how sheepish Christians feel when they are tagged as “crunchy”. Given that we worship the creator of the earth, I’d think that it would seem more natural to have people feel sheepish if they weren’t.
Posted by Carla on February 14, 2007 at 10:13 am
Chewymom, I posted at the same time as you. You said it better than I could.
Posted by reneegrace on February 14, 2007 at 10:57 am
“What if all He really does is stand back and let the race of Adam do what it does best?”
This is what I was trying to post about on God’s wrath in Romans 1… it goes along with that… God’s wrath is shown not because he uses His large thumb to squash and destroy… its because he turns us over to ourselves and the natural consequences of our depraved minds making decisions and relying on ourselves and our flesh.
I have been completely convicted to take better care of the earth. It is a shame when God gives us this incredible INCREDIBLE creation and the intricacies of it, and we throw it away and TRASH it!! Sometimes in our ignorance, fair enough. Sometimes because we turn our backs and PLAY ignorant… I think we WILL be held accountable.
Posted by Lindsey @ Enjoy the journey on February 14, 2007 at 11:21 am
Awwwh come on. Everyone knows you can’t be an environmentalist AND a Jesus Freak. You just can’t.
(SARCASM!)
Posted by Tiffany on February 14, 2007 at 11:31 am
I don’t think that the science supports global warming in the “major catastophe on the horizon, it’s all mans fault, we’re going to be swallowed by the sea” sort of way. However, I do think the science supports that the temperature is rising… but regardless of the outcome of that I think you (and the commenters) are exactly right- that part of the charge in the garden was to take care of the earth. Not that that precludes hunting in my opinion. Nor do I think that it means the environment will never change and species will never die, no matter how good of care we take of it.
I think you hit the nail on the head Molly- it isn’t just the human race which is fallen, it is the physical creation as well. We should think just because it is God’s handiwork that we can take it for granted.
And it is sad that so many people want to seperate caring for the environment and Christianity. They don’t have to be two seperate camps. I think it is that since the most outspoken environmentalist are often out spoken about things that are at odds with Christianity that so many conservative Christians wonder about joining in the clean up effort.
Of course (and now I’m rambling…sorry) I do have concerns with the political ramifications of all of this….the groups that are pro-environment are quite regularly the ones that are pro-abortion as well. And so if I have to choose between the two, I’m definitely going with those who are going to protect babies. I just wish it wasn’t an either or.
Posted by Margaret on February 14, 2007 at 11:46 am
Isn’t it possible to not obsess over global warming and also understand the need to care for the earth?
We are trying to stay away from falling into typical, wasteful, American consumerism, and we’re getting pretty darn crunchy (except for being “breeders”). But I’m not worried about global warming. The globe has gone through cycles of warming and cooling since it’s beginning (long before disposable diapers and SUV’s), and I don’t think we have all that much ability to stop and start such cycles. I also believe that rather than humans being a “disease” on the earth, we can be the earth’s greatest resources. Some of the “green” sentiments along those lines are positively frightening to me. Not only am I a bad person for having more than two kids, but I shouldn’t be permitted to have them! Yikes!
Posted by Atlantic on February 14, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hi Molly! I haven’t been around for ages because I thought you’d stopped blogging at the end of last year. I’m very pleased to find out I was wrong!
I’m a crunchy conservative Catholic and a global warming skeptic, at least as far as mainstream anthropogenic global warming. The thing is, it’s not “no big deal” if the mainstream views are wrong.
There are three main ways that they could be wrong:
- Perhaps global warming is not happening, or it will be of trivial magnitude
- Perhaps global warming is happening, but there will be at least as many benefits as costs
-Perhaps global warming is happening, but it is mostly not caused by human activities
Suppose we take the actions that mainstream global-warmers advocate to reduce global warming, but they are wrong in one of these ways. This means that the Western developed world will spend a huge amount of money on something that is of little or no net benefit. Therefore, that the money is no longer available to spend on other things like clean water, sanitation, health care and education. If, as in option 3 above, they are correct that global warming is happening, but wrong that it is human-caused, then that money will not be available to spend on ameliorating the negative effects of global warming either.
Posted by chewymom on February 14, 2007 at 12:17 pm
By the way, if you are a global warming skeptic, I highly recommend the Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” After years of hating Al Gore, (Why? Because conservatives told me I was supposed to.) I was extremely impressed with this movie. If you can get past any stereotypes of Mr. Gore or any preconceived ideas, it is very informative.
Posted by Anne on February 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm
In my opinion there has already been reprisal for the way man has mis-used the earth. Look at how rampant cancer, allergies, asthma, etc. are. Many believe these are directly affected by what we’ve done to our food, our belongings and the environment.
Christians should be the first to be responsible in caring for the earth. It’s interesting to see this movement of Christians that are becoming interested in natural living.
My major problem with liberal environmentalism is that it seems that it promotes worship of the creation over the Creator. They value plant and animal life, but think destroying human life is okay through abortion.
It doesn’t have to be either/or, does it? One can be a Christian and not fit into either of those extreme stereotypes. I hope so, because I’m a Christian who is very interested in taking care of our environment!
Posted by Carla on February 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Tiffany wrote:
.
Of course (and now I’m rambling…sorry) I do have concerns with the political ramifications of all of this….the groups that are pro-environment are quite regularly the ones that are pro-abortion as well. And so if I have to choose between the two, I’m definitely going with those who are going to protect babies. I just wish it wasn’t an either or.
.
I so totally agree!! That is a biggie here in Canada, too. It is becoming more of a campaign issue this go-round here, but overall I’ve had to make the same choices. I think it goes both ways with the “green” parties identifying with pro-abortion to win the female vote and with conservatives shying away from the environment to keep the business vote.
Posted by reneegrace on February 14, 2007 at 1:08 pm
the “which political party” to choose… Aargh! I am Australian, so I can’t vote anyway, BUT
still…
I don’t think environmental awareness and positive changes really comes from political parties. I think change will ONLY happen with individuals, making LITTLE choices, changing LITTLE things in each family’s lifestyle, and when one becomes natural, you make another little change, and eventually all those little changes make a HUGE difference.
Posted by Spunky on February 14, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I’d believe more of the global warming rhetoric if China and India were required to abide by the Kyoto treaty that they signed but don’t have to follow. Why? They were not responsible for the emissions that led to this “crisis.” But supposedly the US is, because we caused something we didn’t know we were causing as we were industrializing our country while the third world languised in relative isolation. Give me a break!
Posted by Spunky on February 14, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’d also believe it when all these star studded globe trotting environmentalists give up their jet setting ways and SUV’s for a YUGO and a “reasonable” sized house in the suburbs where you can’t mow your lawn on an “ozone action day!” Come on. What is a family with ONE child doing in a mansion that could fit all my relatives from the time they immigrated from Russia and another in Europe for a quick get away. If they really want us to believe the hype they’ve got to start walking the walk themselves and cut back themselves. The Gospel according to Gore and his inevitable truth isn’t enough for me to change my thoughts quite yet.
Posted by tonia on February 14, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Spunky,
*big smile* I like it when you get all spunky like that.
~I agree that the problem is not just U.S.-centric. But I don’t know what to think about global warming, to be honest. I know we (all of us – the whole world) need to be better stewards of the earth, and I think it starts with all of us, Christians first, making small, everyday choices to live in a way that shows our stewardship.
Posted by Lesley on February 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I did not read all the comments, so please forgive me if I reapeat anyone.
I do believe that global warming is real, but I also think it is cyclical. I hope I spelled that word right, if not then try to figure it out. LOL
Things happen is cycles and I don’t think that the earth is any different.
Posted by Spunky on February 14, 2007 at 4:17 pm
After reading this I know that our God has both a sense of humor and everything firmly in control.
“As ironies go, it can’t get starker. The US Congress has had to postpone a hearing on global warming on Wednesday because of — bad weather. Make that real bad weather…
In Washington DC, forecast of less than three inches of snow, but with ice and sleet accompanying, was enough for Congress to dump a hearing on ‘Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
Congress can attempt to control our lives and behavior, but they’ll never control God!
Posted by cindyb on February 14, 2007 at 4:30 pm
In the 70’s, we were in a so-called ice age and now some 35 years later, we are warming up. This sounds cyclical to me! I didn’t like the way the environmental committees talked about too many people as being the cause. This gives more fuel for the pro-abortion agenda! Just plant more trees and the situation will balance itself out. They will also give the termites more food to eat. Wherever tropical forests have been cut down, there has been a major explosion of termites, which produce methane, the fifth most abundant “greenhouse-producing” gas. Termites alon produce 100 million tons of methane gas to our atmosphere each year.
Posted by BruceA on February 14, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Just to add fuel to the fire, so to speak: Regarding your speculation above, “So many times, we’d pictured an angry God lighting a match. What if all He really does is stand back and let the race of Adam do what it does best?”
That’s not at all far-fetched. In fact, that’s what seems to be implied in Revelation 11:18 –
Posted by Keer on February 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Aw man, cindyb beat me to the punch.
We may be in a warming trend right now, but I won’t be surprised if in 30 years we’re on the “verge of another ice age” like we were 30-35 years ago. I believe it’s cyclical.
.
HOWEVER.
.
I do believe that we need to do our part to care for God’s creation.
.
(Not feeling so hot, so I’ll just ditto Carla on the hows.)
Posted by molleth on February 14, 2007 at 6:02 pm
boy, some great comments…
.
Real quick—I agree we’re on a warming trend and that the earth appears to move in cyclical patterns, BUT it is disturbing to look at the graphed stuff…meaning, it’s WAY above any previously recorded cycle, and there does seem to be a strong corrolation with the heavy use of fossil fuels.
.
And I agree with an above commenter, regarding recommending watching Al Gore’s movie, “Inconvenient Truth” (and, yes, I had to get past some major convulsions just to order it from Netflix in the first place-haha). I really do recommend watching it, though.
.
I guess I’m not interested in only reading/researching anti-global-warming folks and then thinking I have a circumspect opinion, you know–lol. I want to hear from both sides, and then try to form my opinion. And I have to say, the pro-global-warming people really do have some disturbing information on their side—stuff that is not easily answered. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about:
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
.
Either way, though, it seems that (as all of you have said), a Christian should be a good steward, period. Meaning, if we know that bleach is toxic to the environment, then let’s only use it when it’s a necessary thing (meaning, it’s use is extremely rare), and otherwise look around for non-toxic alternatives, etc.
.
Simple small choices like that can really make a difference when everyone is making them. So, in that sense, whether global warming is legit or just hoopla, our small earth-friendly choices still do a lot of good. And I think it glorifies God (in that we are shining His image) when we dump animal/plant-friendly water down our drain, instead of things that are destructive. Just little things…
Posted by valerie on February 15, 2007 at 3:54 am
What’s the story with bleach, Molly? I use it in the loos, and I also used it to detox the house we are moving into – the bathroom had some mould and I have a THING about clean bathrooms…. I don’t use it normally in the bathroom, tend to go for the vinegar/bicarb thing, but do use it to disinfect the loo. How bad is it for the environment? (Thinking I may need to re-think my usage!)
Posted by whimsy on February 15, 2007 at 5:45 am
Yes, I believe our climate has cycles. However, we need to be sensitive to them and make sure we are not doing anything to make those cycles unbalanced. Just like it’s normal to have highs and lows in emotions, bi-polar disorder is unhealthy.
It saddens me that we have let ourselves become so divided that we won’t/can’t/don’t hear a message just because “the other side” is saying it. I catch myself doing it all the time. I think “well, if THEY’RE saying it, it’s got to be wrong”
I don’t buy into Gore’s theory lock, stock and barrel. But if I water it down and only believe 25% of it, that is still enough for me to take it seriously and consider my actions.
Spunky – yeah, it irks me that it feels like other countries aren’t doing their share. But when my kids haven’t cleaned up a mess I told them to clean, I don’t accept “but my brother didn’t clean his mess up” as a legitimate reason. I don’t think God will accept it of us either.
(I know that’s not what you are saying, but that’s what I heard does that make sense?)
*she types as she drinks her coffee from a styrofoam cup*
Odviously, I can still do more.
Posted by Margaret on February 15, 2007 at 7:08 am
OK. Britain used to be warm enough to produce really fine wines. When England gets too *hot* to produce fine wines again, I’ll start to worry.
Posted by Margaret on February 15, 2007 at 7:12 am
And non-green confession coming up–dh says “bring it on” about global warming.
He’s seriously talking about buying a gas guzzling evil SUV because our teeny-tiny environementally friendly little Nissan has been *useless* with the snow and ice nature dumped on us. It couldn’t even make it up the driveway last night. He drives our evil old gas guzzling van to work and back because if an accident should happen, he doesn’t want to be smashed to smithereens. :p
As long as we live where we get snow and ice, I think larger cars will be our one and only bow towards “bigger and better” consumerism. Hopefully we can make up for it by using cloth diapers and not flushing the (water saving) toilet so often.
Posted by Spunky on February 15, 2007 at 8:07 am
My point in bringing up India and China is that they are where we years ago. And if what we did was so terrible to the evironment that it caused this “crisis” then why would environmnetalists tolerate them doing it now? If it was bad then, it’s bad now. To use your analogy, if my son failed to clean up his room for 15 years and now must pay the price and do a whole remodel, I would certainly learn and make sure that my toddler does not repeat his mistakes. If we as stewards of the earth screwed up, then certainly as a “global citizen” we wouldn’t want our neighbors to make the same mistake as we are. Yet, that’s what is being allowed to happen.
So, it’s not that I’m trying to get out being a good steward, but make sure that the hype matches the truth. And it’s inconsistencies in the thinking that make me pause and wonder. That’s all.
I sit in my house all the time and watch my global warming neighbors talk about the “crisis” while they drive two cars, eat in packaged foods, use disposable diapers, and use disposable bottles for their children. All the while telling ME I have too many children and I’m being selfish with the earth’s resources. We use cloth, nurse, drive one car, and live in a house smaller than their home. (Which they heat and leave lights on while no one is home.) It makes me wonder where the crisis really is.
Posted by Paul on February 15, 2007 at 10:58 am
good post Molls – dominion theology seems to be going the way of all domination theology – mainly cos christians aren’t dominating more, especially in the west…
If christians are about the big themese of God like justice and mercy then we should be looking at our own lifestyles – it is the poorest people of the world who have done the least to deserve it that will suffer the most from irregular climate change – on that basis alone we should be motivated to do something…
The UK govt recently produced a report which said something like the estimated cost to address excess carbon is 1% of glodal gdp the cost of not addressing it is something like 10-15% of global gdp [and the poorest nations will suffer the most loss]… or in other words with some cost will actually save a lot of cost in the future…
as individuals we can change our consuming habbits from our energy sources, to our clothes to our food/cooking – and that can in turn inspire our friends and families. As people, voters in a democracy we have a lot of power to exercise in order to encourage govts to legislate in ways that protect the environment, promote social and economic justice – not just for ourselves but for the rest of the world…
Posted by Atlantic on February 15, 2007 at 11:12 am
Paul, you must be talking about the Stern Review from the BBC (definitely nota right-wing GW-skeptic source):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6295021.stm
“But expert critics of the review now claim that it overestimates the risk of severe global warming, and underestimates the cost of acting to stop it.”
“…when climate scientists and environmental economists read the 670-page review, many said there were serious flaws. These critics are not climate change sceptics, but researchers with years of experience who believe that human-induced climate change is real and that we need to act now.”
Posted by Atlantic on February 15, 2007 at 11:30 am
Sorry…that should have read
“mean the Stern Review. Take a look at this article about it from the BBC (definitely not a right-wing GW-skeptic source):
Posted by Marcia on February 15, 2007 at 11:54 am
I think change will ONLY happen with individuals, making LITTLE choices, changing LITTLE things in each family’s lifestyle, and when one becomes natural, you make another little change, and eventually all those little changes make a HUGE difference. . Thank you, Renee! I wish I could pound this into people’s heads–it’s not about politics, it’s about hearts. . Spunky, you rawk. Even if you aren’t Keer. . Molly, how dare you watch anything promoted by that rotten liberal?!* . *Kidding. But you knew that.
Posted by Marcia on February 15, 2007 at 11:55 am
Aargh! I hate this template!
Posted by Spunky on February 15, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Molly, I followed the link and most of the citations for those stats are dubious at best. Most link went to news stories that no longer have the stories to verify the source or very biased sources. I’m not saying that they are wrong, but a good defense relies on independent data and science demands it and so should we. Global warming is at best a theory and probably more like a hypothesis. Shutting out opposing viewpoints as “cynical” and
.
Their dire predictions about a collapse in 2030 are laughable. We had a snowstorm this past week. The weather man the day before said snow would start at 7AM. But the only “flakes” we saw were the weatherman telling us it would be here by 10AM. Then it was 1PM. By 4PM we were starting to see the flakes fall. And the weathermen breathed a sigh of relief.
If they can’t predict the next 24 hours, these dire predictions for 20 or more years out are equally dubious.
I remember in the early 80’s when AIDS was the “crisis” of the day and we were told that if immediate action was taken we would have a pandemic the new millenium. AIDS is a problem but certainly not nearly what they said it would be.
.
Speaking of the new millenium, how about Y2K. Are you still drinking your bottled water that was stored away in 5 gallon drums from that “crisis?” Thank God they were wrong.
.
When they start shooting cows for all the “emissions” they produce I’ll take things a little more seriously. But then what would PETA say?
.
Here’s two pieces of advice,
The first, Be careful of extremes (liberal or conservative.) and the second I learned from my father, when anyone says, “ACT NOW!” that’s the time to sit and think for a while. Emotional arguments followed by a call for immediate action are usually used when facts are weak to deflect counter arguments. However, Truth will hold up to scrutiny every time.
Posted by Kari on February 15, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Too much to do to get into all this, but I *must* LOL at this:
“When they start shooting cows for all the “emissions” they produce I’ll take things a little more seriously. But then what would PETA say?”
I *love* you, Spunky!
Posted by gracie on February 15, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I’m with Spunky on this. I’m actually quite surprised by the constant hammering of global warming theories as fact on many Christian blogs.
It is not logical to believe unproven theories, no matter how many politicos and movies tout it as truth.
Has anyone heard of Bjorn Lomborg? A scientist with so many credentials it would take a half hour just to read them. He wrote “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. It’s Sensible. I recommend it for anyone who searches for the truth. Come Bereans…
Posted by molleth on February 15, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I guess what I am concerned with is us listening to only one side and then assuming we know what the other side thinks and teaches. I think that can apply to both sides, but for those of us on the conservative side, we have to admit that most of what we get fed is anti-global warming. In the interest of fair-play, perhaps we should listen to what the “others” are saying, instead of hearing “them” primarily through the lens of our own side.
.
Whether global warming is true or not, I think it’s still highly appropriate to draw attention to the raping of our ecosystems as we pollute and destroy. In my opinion, these are things that Christians should be working against, not working to help. I think we forget how dependant we are on a flourishing earth, and the suffering that results when we destroy it.
Posted by Paul on February 15, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Hi Atlantic, yes that is the one, that’s one of the beautiful things about the bbc they prise their jounalistic integrity and fair reporting/coverage of the issue – and in a democracy people are free to disagree. The other important thing to say is the report is on the economic impact of climate change, what it will cost in the future and what it will cost now do something. I liked this final para:
None of Stern’s critics are advocating doing nothing about climate change. What they disagree about is how much it is worth sacrificing now to try to prevent a worst-case scenario in a hundred years’ time.
Which is of course a question at the end of the day of our own self interest – we rich westerners will be fairly insulated because fundamentally we are wealthy and powerful, have good information systems, high education etc. So yes we can carry on our excess lifestyles, we can put action off into the future we can pretty much be content that there will be some impact but most of us will ride out the storm… whilst elsewhere millions of others will suffer cos they have far less resources to deal with the impact. It’s certainly a choice we each have to make…
Posted by Paul on February 15, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Hi Spunky, so let me get this right, the weatherman predicted snow and it snowed just later then they said and on that basis you are casting doubt of forecasting techniques? I’m sure no one can predict the exact time snow will fall just like no one can predict the exact tipping point for climate change but most of the evidence points that way…
I love the other points you raise – not least as they are so hopeful in terms of western economies responding to crises – from AIDS where we have spent billions to Y2k where we also spent billions – it’s great having money to throw at a problem especially when its given urgent attention like AIDS.
But even with the best medical care, research, public health education, contraception etc there are still 2m + adults and children in the West with HIV/Aids and 30,000 deaths in 2006. See http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
On the other hand in the poorest countries like africa who lack all the resources we have to deal with a crisis they are facing a crisis any way you want to cut the stats – take this page from DATA.org
Africa has been hit harder by the HIV/AIDS virus than any other region of the world. More than 17 million Africans have died from AIDS and another 25 million are infected with the HIV virus, approximately 1.9 million of whom are children.
Every day in Africa:
• HIV/AIDS kills 6,600 people
• 8,800 people are infected with the HIV virus
• 1,400 newborn babies are infected during childbirth or by their mothers’ milk.
People with AIDS don’t suffer alone—the disease attacks their families and communities as well. AIDS has stripped out an entire generation of parents, farmers, doctors, leaders. 12 million African children have already lost one or both parents to AIDS, and unless we take serious action now, there will be more than 18 million AIDS orphans by the end of the decade. Millions of children will have lost not only their parents, but their teachers, nurses and friends too. Businesses are losing their workers, governments are losing their civil servants, families are losing their breadwinners. As a result, entire communities are devastated and economies that are already crippled by poverty, debts and unfair trade policies are further compromised.
While the moral case stands alone as a reason to act, richer countries also have economic and security reasons to fight this emergency. As we’ve seen in the case of Afghanistan, devastated, unstable states can become breeding grounds for terrorists. Seeing Africa as our neighbor, and acting now to stop the spread of AIDS, is not just the moral thing to do—it’s the practical thing.
The good news is that we know what works. Successes in a handful of countries such as Uganda and Senegal have shown that HIV rates can be brought down through effective AIDS prevention campaigns. Education, media campaigns, and community work with the most vulnerable can stop people from getting the HIV virus in the first place. AIDS drugs also have the potential to make a huge difference to the impact of the pandemic. In the past year, people living with AIDS in Africa have dared to hope that they might get access to anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) that will keep them alive to work and care for their families. These drugs work so well that they produce a ‘Lazarus’ effect—patients at death’s door can be back at work within 2 months of starting treatment. Evidence shows that Africans taking the life-saving anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) adhere to their regimens much better than Americans or Europeans—the success rate is about 90%.
Africa is the region most in need of life-saving anti-AIDS drugs, accounting for 4.7m of the 6.5m people worldwide in need of ARVS. Significant progress has been made recently in increasing access to ARVs. However, only 500,000 of the 4.7m people in immediate need of ARVs in Africa have access to them. This is partly because of the price—the cheapest drugs are a dollar a day, but most Africans cannot afford this. It is also because of availability. In some places, only more expensive drugs are available, plus in many communities, there is not infrastructure or trained health care workers to monitor and administer the treatment. The scarcity of treatment results in doctors and families having to make the hardest choice of all—in the community, in the family, who will live and who will die.
a $1 is nothing to most of this who read this site and that is the difference between a crisis in area of the world and our relatively sheltered life here. It’s why it’s about not just health but trade/econonomic and social justice.
Gracie raised the point about why so many christians raise the issue of environmental change on their blogs – maybe because there is a feeling that christians should be at the forefront of tending and serving creationg per God’s commission to Adam and Eve. Maybe it’s cos christians have been called to love others as part of loving God and living lives of service and giving to the the lost, the least and the last. To speak out for those who have so little voice, to believe that we should take seriously the possibility that our planet is under threat and the poor will suffer the most. More that we can start doing something about, we can all begin to change our lives in ways that are profound and prophetic…
Posted by chewymom on February 16, 2007 at 4:55 am
Molly, I think the lack of listening to the other side is key. I used to get all of my info from Rush Limbaugh. Imagine my surprise when I really listened to the “other side” and found that not everything Rush said is right or even true! (Hey, why tell the truth when there’s so much money to be made just debunking the left??) Once I opened my eyes and ears and heard what was being said by the left, I realized that a lot more of it was true than I cared to admit.
Again, I’ll plug the Al Gore video. I LOATHED him and Clinton during the Clinton presidency. But after watching that movie and paying attention to what he is saying and to who he seems to be as a person…well let’s just say I respect him a WHOLE lot more than I do Rush at this point.
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 5:35 am
Hi Spunky, so let me get this right, the weatherman predicted snow and it snowed just later then they said and on that basis you are casting doubt of forecasting techniques?
No, I’m not casting doubt on forcasting techniques, but I’m not staking all my money on them either. Which is what many seem to want to to do, Congress included.
I’ll let the other points go for now, since they were not the point of the post.
As far as reading both sides, that’s a great practice. I’ve been doing it for years. The best way to learn how to articulate a position is by reading what critics of your position believe and researching and digging for Truth – not rightness.
Posted by Holly on February 16, 2007 at 6:12 am
So, um…what you are saying is…Al Gore doesn’t have an agenda?
(snort.)
There IS a balance, and it’s not that hard to find.
Posted by Paul on February 16, 2007 at 6:14 am
lol spunky, i don’t think any one wants you to stake all your money, just wager some of it both ways
Posted by Barb Moody on February 16, 2007 at 6:38 am
I am a great skeptic on this whole issue. Think back, 30 years and it was global cooling or over-population or, whatever issue du jour. Each side can twist statistics to suit their pleasure. Another issue behind all this is man’s vain belief that he can control everything natural – weather, meteors hitting the earth, etc. It seems logical that the earth goes through cycles – all of the rest of creation does. To say that man is responsible gives him a little too much credit. Yeah, let’s be sensible and steward what the LORD has given us but remember he controls.
Posted by thereverendswife on February 16, 2007 at 7:01 am
my thoughts, at my house…
Posted by gracie on February 16, 2007 at 8:55 am
I don’t know a single Christian who does not care for their environment. I don’t know a single Christian who wouldn’t give up material wealth to help those in need. But, I am starting to know many Christians who do not search for the truth as the Bible commands.
This blog is a blessing, Molly, because you ask the questions and it opens the debate. God Bless you for that. I pray we can continue to have these kinds of forums…not for us to be right, but to seek what is true.
America is a powerful, prosperous country. Human nature dictates that this is wrong somehow–unfair. So, in the name of ‘fairness’, other countries seek to equalize the power and prosperity of the one. This is historical. Strong countries usually do not topple from the might of others. I don’t believe America will either. What I see happening is this ‘great equalizing’ coming from within as misplaced guilt weakens our freedoms (which brings prosperity) by instruments such as the Kyoto Treaty. This Treaty holds the U.S. accountable in almost every respect for global warming and if implemented in its entirety, would destroy a third of our economy…therby making us equal with many third world countries.
But, at least the guilt is gone.
That is why it was soundly and rightly rejected during Clinton’s presidency, by every member of the senate and Clinton himself. The one yea vote was from Mr. Gore.
Make no mistake…this treaty will come to our congress again and with the constant mantra that we can do something about the climate of the world by, in essence, destroying the U.S. economy, it will pass with many more yea votes with the help of conservatives and Christians…that is what puzzles me.
From a Biblical standpoint: Anyone with a basic knowledge of Revelations knows that the earth is doomed. Molly asks if perhaps the LORD will let man make that choice. Good question. I believe the Laws of Entropy alone demand that the earth descend into chaos, “All Creation groans.” I also believe that if mankind thinks they can destroy this earth, then there will be no need to believe in the coming tribulations as God’s judgements.
The Old Testament is rife with natural disasters as the LORD’s punishment for an unbelieving population. Many of these disasters were worse than anything we’ve seen in the modern world…and that was before SUV’s.
I understand the compassion that arises when Christians see suffering. That is as it should be. I understand the guilt that comes with having so much when others have so little, that is also good, for it keeps us from hardening our hearts. But, it will be the downfall of those who follow philosophies that ‘tickle the ear’ or give them a false sense of empowerment. I just say…take care lest you be decieved.
Posted by Tiffany on February 16, 2007 at 9:47 am
I think Holly and others make a very good point….neither political side is without an agenda. And Al Gore is Political. Period. Not to say that he doesn’t/can’t care for the planet for its own sake, but he is a politician and not without an agenda of his own.
So just because we find out that the Political Right has an agenda and its leaders are ready to believe the date points that best support their opinion, lets not assume the other side doesn’t do exactly the same thing.
This is why I find it frustrating that it is a political issue. I suppose there is no way for it not to be one. Since it is though, I think we (everyday, non politician folk) have to take the things the experts say with a grain of salt and try to decern what place they are coming from and why before we reach any conclusions. This can be a frustrating and difficult process since all sides say that they have the best information and that the other side is missing the point or deliberately misleading you and if you don’t do what they say we’re all doomed.
I guess I think we need to keep issues such as this in perspective. Is it vitally important to do our part to care for creation in our everyday life? YES!!!! (the things spunky mentioned above are fantastic things basically every family could do to help) Is it vitally important that we figure out what the climate is going to be in the next 100 years and then tell everyone else what THEY have to be doing. I say no. I think instead we need to tell them about the creator. We need to live so they want to know about the creator (at least as much as is possible through our own actions, our actiosn do no make or break the deal). And then, they will serve Christ, value his creation, be saved for eternity as well as filled with the spirit here on earth. They will teach their children the same. This to me seems a lot more important and a much mroe practical way of helping the environment then debating whether the kyoto treaty has scientific merrit.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 9:58 am
(Ramble to all):
Can the global warming folks be wrong. Sure. But a lot of the arguments you guys are using (anti-warming) seem like they fall along the same lines as the anti-homeschooling arguments. I can’t help but wonder if we’ve been predisposed to be anti-GW via our conservative air.
.
I try to listen to Rush (glad chewy mentioned him) every so often and that guy is RABIDLY anti-GW…but his arguments against it are weak, at best. It’s mostly just a bunch of grumping and yelling. Sounds impressive, but has little real bulk.
.
I’m with chewy. Watch Gore’s movie. Seriously. Laugh at the idea, whatever, but go watch it. Let me know when you do, and we can have a blog post talking about it or whatever. I’d really like to hear your (all of your) thoughts after that.
.
One interesting point that’s been brought up more than once is the end of the earth idea.
I admit to worrying a little bit about the, “earth is doomed,” doctrine, because it pre-disposes us to shrug off environmental concerns.
.
I remember walking past the director of our TX Bible school one time (in a parking lot–just happened to run into him) and he was opening a cd and tossing the wrappers out of his car. I mentioned that he just littered, kind of in shock, and he said, “Oh, that. The earth is going to burn up anyways.” Later he apologized to us, explaining that the mature (who knew the earth was going to burn up) still needed to be careful around the immatture (people who think littering is bad), and that he was sorry for offending us. It was…weird.
.
But it all stemmed from, “Hey, the earth is doomed, so who cares,” mentality. I would wager a big guess that this doctrine has a LOT to do with why so many Christians tend to see environmentalism as a waste of time (at best).
.
I guess I’m just a little confused. I mean, can we be decieved by saying that we should be good stewards of the earth? Is the devil’s plan to get us to be good to our environment…? Really?
Posted by tonia on February 16, 2007 at 10:45 am
“I remember in the early 80’s when AIDS was the “crisis” of the day and we were told that if immediate action was taken we would have a pandemic the new millenium. AIDS is a problem but certainly not nearly what they said it would be.”
.
I have to say, I agree with Paul. In the western world we are somewhat sheltered from the crises the rest of the world are dealing with.
.
I’m sure the nations of Africa which have rampant HIV devestation would feel that AIDS is indeed a “crisis.”
.
I also agree with Molly. Perhaps the people in this forum all care for the earth as good stewards – hallelujah! but I know an awful lot of people who feel it is their God-given right to use, spoil and plunder in the name of “dominion.” They laugh at “bleeding-hearts” who worry about rainforests, and ozone layers and foreign labor because they feel they have a right to be healthy and wealthy – and if those issues are not affecting them or their family, then they don’t believe they exist.
.
I’m kind of tired of that.
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 11:18 am
Just to clarify my position, I’m not saying that there isn’t GW, I’m just wondering if it is the catastrophic results of this said rise in temps are valid enough to result in all the ACT NOW or die rhetoric.
.
As far as as since Tonia brought it up, what I was referring to was the hype that we are going to get it just by coming in contact with an AIDS infected person. The stuff in Africa was already a problem and continues to be. It was the panic that was perpetrated by those without any knowledge but an agenda to push. I see the same thing happening here with GW.
.
Al Gore can do all he wants to convince us of his side, and Rush Limbaugh can do all he wants to convince us of his side. And if a pastor wants to open the discussion up to his church and encourage good stewardship, go for it That’s the beauty of living in a free society. But getting governments involved in telling us that we MUST do this or that, or limit our rights because of a hypothesis, well let’s just say I get a little animated. Let’s all take a deep breath and exhale (not all at the same time it will upset the CO balance in the ozone!) and stop and analyze the situation before making “panic” decisions.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I agree. And I’m not advocating panic decisions, just responsible stewardship.
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 12:34 pm
As I just posted on Holly’s blog, responsible stewardship means different things to different people. To some, you are not being “responsible” by having your five children. So while it is easy to seek fault in other Christians who are not “green” enough according to some, there are many who would look at your or my choice in family size as being the most irresponsible choice of all. After all we’ve just created between us eleven potential “rapists” of the planet. How could we do something so selfish!
Posted by tonia on February 16, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Personally, I don’t need Rush or Al or anybody else with an “agenda” to tell me that we (myself and my country) have a problem with consumption and misuse of resources. All I have to do is look around. I’m speaking for myself here, but I don’t care what the neighbors, or China or North Korea or the federal government is or isn’t doing.
*I* am convicted that *I* have a problem and am not living as a wise steward of God’s creation. The paradigm that Molly has described (with a “dominion” ideology) is familiar to me, as that was what I was taught as a young person. I reject that notion and believe God is calling me to a simpler, more thoughtful lifestyle.
Do I wish other people had the same conviction? You betcha. And I’m not afraid to talk about my convictions about it. But the arguments and finger pointing can go on forever. I’m just going to do what I can do in simple, small ways and try to walk out the convictions that I believe God has given to me.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 1:03 pm
So…feeling confused, here, Spunky… Are you saying that because some environmentalists are zero-population-growth enthusiasts, that means we need to be on gaurd against environmentalism?
.
I guess I’m failing to see why talking about being good stewards of the environment creates such vigorous, “yeah, but watch out!” type responses. Just because some homeschoolers do things I wouldn’t doesn’t make me think all homeschoolers are bad, or that homeschooling is a vast conspiracy trying to trick humankind.
.
I don’t know if that makes sense or not, but all this post said is that it IS possible for us to destroy parts of our earth (that we’ve already done it, in fact), and that Christians ought to be good to the earth whenever possible. I wasn’t aware that this was such a hot button issue, I guess.
.
Abortionists promote the drinking of water. Does that make water drinking bad? Does that require me to make sure, everytime I drink water, to say that though I drink water, I am most certainly not pro-abortion?
.
A ton of scientists are saying that global warming theories have merit, that it’s something we need to look into. Am I to believe that all these scientists are part of a massive world-takeover, trying to ruin our economy? That they are part of a conspiracy to destroy the United States?
.
I don’t know…I’m just saying that part of loving our neighbor as ourselves includes taking care of this planet we all share. It makes good common sense, and in that way, is part of the Gospel (is part of the two rules Jesus gave us, to love God and to love our neighbor).
.
I realize that there are people who think that a fish is equivilant to a human baby’s life, perhaps even higher. But…so? Just because they ALSO advocate taking care of the earth doesn’t mean I can’t, or that I have to make sure I only take care of the earth WHILE loudly saying I’m not one of those weird fish-lovers.
.
Bottom line: I don’t get why talking about being responsible when it comes to the environment causes so much fuss. *grinning shrug*
Posted by gracie on February 16, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I certainly don’t think we can be deceived by saying we’re good stewards, Molly. I guess have a little trouble with clarity, forgive me.
But, I believe we can get into trouble with environmentalism because it is political and has been used to by radicals to the detriment and actual harm of human life. So, now we’re left with conservatives trying to swing the pendulum back the other way, many coming across as hard-hearted in the process.
I also should have qualified my statement about the earth being doomed with that-doesn’t-mean-we-can-trash-the-earth. I just assumed that most Christians know the prophecy concerning God’s judgement involves destruction of nature. It is meant to turn us to Him and away from ourselves in the end.
As I said, every Christian I know is a good steward of their environment. It’s just that I’d like to know how someone else judges this. If we judge it by Gore’s movie, then there is a problem, because government will get involved and make laws and sign treaties. Goodbye freedom.
Posted by tonia on February 16, 2007 at 1:33 pm
gracie, you said,
.
“I believe we can get into trouble with environmentalism because it is political and has been used to by radicals ”
.
???? Couldn’t this be said of abortion? civil rights? care for the poor? Surely the fact that something has been politicized doesn’t mean that we are not to engage with it as Christians.
.
I think the fact that we ARE Christians means we should be on the front lines of these issues…way before they need to get politicized and handled by the government.
.
Posted by gracie on February 16, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Clarity issues again.
Sorry, Tonia.
What I meant by getting into trouble was trouble defining arguments about what makes good stewardship, in response to Molly’s concern about environmentalism being political.
I don’t believe environmentalism can be separated from the political and so we must try to find out what we believe about it and why within those parameters…am I making sense?
The reason I am engaged in this debate, is because of the government’s involvement. I would really hate to see us lose anymore freedoms because someone else defined how I should be a good steward.
Posted by tonia on February 16, 2007 at 1:53 pm
sorry, gracie…my question marks make my comment look a little more hysterical than I feel. *grin*
.
I think we *can* separate the issues from the political storm, and we *should.* But I suspect we are talking about different angles of this issue.
.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Atlantic on February 16, 2007 at 2:01 pm
that’s one of the beautiful things about the bbc they prise their jounalistic integrity and fair reporting/coverage of the issue
Er, well, you’re entitled to your opinion. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Personally, every time I’m in the least bit tempted to get a television, I just think about paying the BBC license fee, and it only takes a nanosecond for me to regain my sanity.
Regarding the BBC and global warming, Jeremy Paxman stated only two weeks ago that “the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”. The fact that even the BBC thinks the Stern Review exaggerates just shows how far off the deep end the report is.
As Christians, we are unquestionably called to help others and practice good stewardship over the earth. The big question is how to do this – what really helps? – and the answers aren’t always easy.
I have no problem with taking threats to the environment seriously. I think it’s absurd to take the “the earth is doomed anyway so it doesn’t matter” point of view. After all, we’re all going to die as well (unless the Second Coming happens within our lifetimes, and we can’t know that), but that’s hardly an excuse to hurt or kill people. However, I am concerned that a lot of people in the must-sign-Kyoto, we’re-doomed-if-we-don’t-act-drastically-now group really are motivated in large part by anti-Western, anti-Christian ideologies.
I’m not going to watch the Al Gore video. For one thing, I don’t have a television. More importantly, a video presentation is not the best way to evaluate scientific claims. I’m not impressed by the fact that the “science” link on the movie’s official website is so brief. For those of you who have seen it, you might also want to take a look at A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth. http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm
I’m also very, very unimpressed with the statement in the latest IPCC summary:
“The content of the authored chapters is the responsibility of the Lead Authors, subject to Working Group or Panel acceptance. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter”
I.e., it sounds like the authors of the actual scientific papers will be asked to change their findings if they aren’t consistent with the Summary or Overview! If this is true, this is serious scientific dishonesty.
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Molly asked, “So…feeling confused, here, Spunky… Are you saying that because some environmentalists are zero-population-growth enthusiasts, that means we need to be on gaurd against environmentalism?”
No, I’m just saying be wise as a serpant and innocent as dove. Your motives for saving the planet and being a “good steward” could find you in an awkward position because you have made statements that depending on perspective could be interpretted to mean different things to different “environmentaliststs.”
Population control is a major component in the some environmental circles. You’re decision to have more than the acceptable 2 children makes you appear irresponsible to those folks.
.
I understand that’s not what you mean by “good stewardship” but many do not. I never said evironmentalists are “bad.” But that some terminology has already been defined and using those terms without understanding them completely can lead to unintened consequences.
.
My point in bring all this up was this, you seemed to say that some Christians have an irresponsible attitude toward the environment and just sitting on their “rear ends’ throwing off all idea of being “green.” Maybe so. But to some evironmentalists the same could be said about you and me in an even greater way. We’re “breeding” future destruction of the planet by our actions and want to make us stop and “be good stewards.” And if we won’t do “be responsible” on our own they’ll find a way to make us stop.
.
So on a personal level you may mean, stop using bleach, but on a national level it can mean start more condoms or worse. Not to say, ALL environmentalists think this, but that’s the whole purpose of responsible debate before any decisions are made.
.
I had a third grader a few years ago tell me while I was pregnant how selfish I was for having another baby. That I should be fined for getting pregnant and keeping the baby. A nine year old was lecturing me on responsible use of the planet and how much trash this little baby is going to create! (Her parents a Rush Limbaugh loving conservative so it wasn’t coming from them.) If an nine year old thinks that’s the solution, I can only imagine what others think would “help” me learn to be more responsible.
.
Those are the sort of “panic” ideas and decisions that I see being discussed based on a hypothesis that makes me turn green but not in the way they would like to see.
Posted by Atlantic on February 16, 2007 at 2:32 pm
A ton of scientists are saying that global warming theories have merit, that it’s something we need to look into. Am I to believe that all these scientists are part of a massive world-takeover, trying to ruin our economy? That they are part of a conspiracy to destroy the United States?
.
Take a look at this article, which appeared in the Sunday Times of London just last week:
.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
.
“When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works….
.
“Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
.
“Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.”
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Gracie, thanks for clarifying.
.
I’ve experienced the same thing, Spunky. I had a troubled 4th pregnancy, and the first doctor I saw (loudly and angrily) told me to get an abortion because it was irresponsible to have a fourth child anyways. Already being in an emotionally unstable position (worried about losing my baby), it was hardly a warm and fuzzy experience.
.
But that STILL doesn’t make me lump all environmentalists into the same boat, or feel the need to warn people about ZPG anytime someone brings up taking good care of the earth.
.
I guess I’m just saying I’m not sure this is good logic here. *shrugs* (And, heck, maybe if the ZPG folks saw us being ecologically responsible and raising compassionate children, if they saw us agreeing with them on a few points regarding taking care of the people that are already alive, then they’d back off their rhetoric a little too).
.
Same with the AIDS thing. We don’t have a terrible wide-scale AIDS epidemic…but other countries DO. It seems really usa-centric to say that AIDS isn’t a problem, just because we managed to get ahold of it (barely) over here. Fact is, it IS a real problem…but we used some intervention policies that helped curb the spread.
.
Which is sort of the point with global warming wonderings…it’s happening…and if there’s something we can do about it (and when the price tag will be SO high if we don’t), why not try? (Why is it irresponsible to suggest that we carefully try to do our best to avoid what appears to be an impending major catastrophe)?
.
I think it’s also fair to say that maybe my area is just really different from yours, so we see this differently due to our own differing experiences. But I’ve not seen a conservative Christian reaction to caring for our earth, rather more of a general scoffing attitude towards those who do. It seems there is an automatic mistrust of those who advocate responsible stewardship—like we have to add a million caveats to what should be a normal part of being a Jesus-follower. It’s just not where I’m at, I guess.
.
Warmly,
Molly
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Molly, I’m not lumping ALL environmentalists into the same boat. In fact, that’s exactly what I’m cautioning against doing here. The fact of the matter is without proper debate we may in fact see that happen. Those that “oppose” the political aspects of global warming are being viewed as insensitive to the environment, insenstive, and down right “stupid” for not seeing the “crisis” and the need for action. I don’t think painting with a broad brush is wise for either side.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Atlantic,
Ah, thank you for bringing that up, as it is something that confuses me.
.
Global warming does not mean that we won’t have winters from here on out, or that strange weather variations won’t occur. I’m not sure why a brief cold snap proves global warming to be flawed, as global warming folks have never claimed that we won’t have cold weather anymore…?
.
I take that stuff as another example of one side really NOT understanding what the other side is actually saying.
Posted by Atlantic on February 16, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Molly, I’m not sure I understand your question. The Times article I linked to is mainly questioning the hypothesis that warming is due to human-produced greenhouse gases. The writer does mention the coverage bias in favour of warming trends, but he doesn’t question the fact of recent warming overall (he refers to the Modern Warming of the 20th century). When he talks about recent temperature leveling as predicted by the solar activity hypothesis, he mentions multiple classes of evidence, including “the best measurements of global air temperatures … from American weather satellites”. Not just a single cold snap.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I guess I should go read the article before I comment! LOL…
Posted by Atlantic on February 16, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Which is sort of the point with global warming wonderings…it’s happening…and if there’s something we can do about it (and when the price tag will be SO high if we don’t), why not try?
.
The problem is that these are huge, expensive ifs.
.
and if there’s something we can do about it
.
If the solar activity hypothesis is correct, maybe there isn’t anything that we can do about it, and the wealth that we would spend attempting prevention will be wasted, when it could have been spent on things like ameliorating the negative effects of warming, plus things like clean water, sanitation, healthcare, education etc in the developing world.
.
(and when the price tag will be SO high if we don’t),
.
We don’t know that. Firstly, the price tag may be lower than you think – either the magnitude may be lower than the mainstream predictions, and/or the benefits of global warming may outweigh the costs. Secondly, if it’s unpreventable, then the price tag (whatever it may be), will not be changed – and we would be much better off spending our time, energy and money on amelioration of the negative effects, not on preventation.
.
On the other hand, if the mainstream GW-ers are correct and we are looking at unprecedented GW due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions then Kyoto not nearly enough. There a great post by Megan McArdle (who now writes for The Economist) where she does a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how our income would be affected by seriously slowing emissions. It would would mean cutting everyone’s income/standard-of-living by somewhere between 50% and 90%.
.
This isn’t anything like cheap or easy.
Posted by Atlantic on February 16, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Here are the links to the articles by Megan McArdle:
http://www.janegalt.net/archives/001020.html
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/001044.html
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Atlantic said, ” how our income would be affected by seriously slowing emissions. It would would mean cutting everyone’s income/standard-of-living by somewhere between 50% and 90%.”
.
And those are very real issues here in Detroit, Michigan where drastic changes in emissions standards based on a hypothesis will affect many families of the auto industry. It will also affect families with a need for large vehicles due to family size.
.
This is another example of a “panic” decision that has huge inintended consequences in the area where I live. I’m all for making fuel efficient cars, but arbitrary federal requirements dictating standards by a certain date threaten to create a difficult situation for an already hurting auto industry. Trucks and heavy duty vehicles are the “bread and butter” of the BIG 3. Remember those “star studded” environmentalists who drive around in their expensive SUV’s? That would make these cars unaffordable to everyone but them.
.
And Atlantic brings up another excellent point, ” if the mainstream GW-ers are correct and we are looking at unprecedented GW due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions then Kyoto not nearly enough.”
.
That was my whole point, by allowing India and China to be exempt from the Kyoto Treaty they would be undoing the very things we’re attempting to solve with their toxic emissions. Unless, of course, toxic emissions, wasn’t what they architects of global warming were really after. Something to think about.
Posted by gracie on February 16, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Molly, I am curious to know what you would consider responsible stewardship? This is not purposely meant to be a rhetorical question, honest!
I just noticed throughout this wonderful discussion (seriously, I am thankful for the graciousness of all) if perhaps the dividing line is a standard?
I consider myself a responsible and compassionate steward, but another Christian may not for whatever their standard may be.
For example: We recycle, but I recently learned that in our town, some items actually cost more both economically and energy-wise to recycle than to dispose of in a landfill. But, there is now a law that those items must be recycled.
We drive a decade-old Suburban which is not as energy-efficient as the newer models, but is within our means. We repair it often and it has seatbelts for us all. My husband insists on it for his precious cargo. He does not trust the lighter energy-efficient vehicles to protect us, especially since he was in an accident in such a car, which destroyed every part of the vehicle except where he was sitting.
I’m not trying to appear extreme, my point is simply that we all have reasons for our own stewardship which may appear to be no reason at all to someone else. I’m just trying to understand where we stop?
I am sorry you have been the recipient of scoffing Christians on this issue. Perhaps they feel fatigue from constantly defending themselves? Many quote Rush Limbaugh because he articulates their feelings well. Most just want the freedom to make the choices of stewardship without the long arm of the law wrapping around them.
I know you are NOT advocating the radical environmentalism, good gracious no! you are clear about that and again, I’m grateful for your blog in bringing this debate before Christians and others. It needs light and air. But, you bring up the question of Christian Environmentalism, and I wonder how to define that?
I have always thought and still do that anyone who professes a belief in the Savior would take care of their environment, it goes with the change of a born-again spirit. I simply take issue with the government and agenda-driven movies…they lead to unintended consequences involving the loss of our liberty.
Posted by Spunky on February 16, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I leave this discussion with an anology to homeschooling. There are those of us who homeschool because we love God and love our children and see this as an avenue to accomplish our goal of discipleship.
.
But there are those in homeschooling who look at it as an avenue for fulfilling the “dominion mandate” and dictating the lives and behavior of others. Depending on which homeschooler you talk to, you’ll come away with very different perspectives on homeschooling and the goals they are trying to achieve.
.
Similarly, I think the same is true with global warming. There are those who are “green” because they love God and want to be a good steward of the things He has provided here on earth. (That’s me) But there are others who look at this as an avenue for domination over the “captialistic and excessive” culture that pervades our country. Controlling the climate is a way to control the lives and behavior of others. In a sense, they are similar to the “dominionist” homeschooler; however they use a different cause to achieve their goal of domination.
.
That’s why it is wise to listen to the perspectives of the differing viewpoints, but do so with discernment.
Posted by thereverendswife on February 16, 2007 at 9:04 pm
But Molly, you don’t use the words Responsible Stewardship anywhere in your post.
.
So it is easy to misunderstand what you are trying to say. Any time you advocate the watching of an Al Gore movie, you are going to push hot buttons and people are going to associate you with left wing politics…whether you intend the association or not!
.
For the record, I did not write my post in response to you. I wrote it a month ago and only posted it today, because you brought up the topic. It seemed to fit.
.
Why has this become such an agenda for evangelicals and emergents? Why during the lead up to an election year? It’s just…fishy. With mercury.
Why has the issue of abortion been dropped by many evangelicals and emergents – only to have them pick up the agenda of environmentalism? As someone else has said – you need to follow the money. It just doesn’t add up!
.
Do you think it is good for the NEA to push their members to preach environmentalism (they don’t call it stewardship, either)from the pulpit?
.
I would rather be personally responsible for stewardship, and for working to implement it in my family and community – for finding that balance. We may hope that the radical environmentalists are a little more soft toward us because of our good deeds…but I think that is a far off hope. We are to make peace with all men – and to care for their souls – and to love them as Christ loved them…but that doesn’t mean marrying into their political agenda!
Posted by thereverendswife on February 16, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Correction: That should be the NAE: National Association of Evangelicals.
And of course…all of this is said with a friendly…but serious…tone.
And I’m with Gracie…I’ve never known a Christian who treated the earth badly on purpose.
Posted by tonia on February 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I am not being flippant…but I find this absolutely remarkable:
.
“And I’m with Gracie…I’ve never known a Christian who treated the earth badly on purpose.”
.
I guess I grew up in a different world than you two.
.
I am very accustomed to people who feel it is their God-given right to treat the earth with very little thought at all. I have also experienced being ridiculed and dismissed as a “bleeding-heart” liberal for suggesting Christians should not do so.
.
Posted by molleth on February 16, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Man, that is SO my own experience, Tonia.
.
So maybe a lot of this just comes from our own unique perspective.
.
In my area, environmentalism is not associated with zero-population-growth or with the “popular thing to do”, but it’s associated with idiots. (I have been very happy with the recent “coolness” of being green, and think it’s been a long time coming).
.
Until very recently in both my Alaska and Texas worlds, buying organic was something openly ridiculed.
.
Also, having been in a conservative traditional church environment for my entire life, I must say that I have never ONCE heard anything earth-friendly being promoted from a pulpit.
.
It’s really interesting to hear other’s experiences though. Helps me understand better where some of you are coming from. (Without knowing your background, I was having a really hard time understanding why anybody would have a problem with saying Christians should be good stewards of the earth).
.
Warmly,
Molly
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 1:18 am
PS. A great article from a Christian-environmentalist perspective:
http://www.guidepostsmag.com/WEEKLY_FEATURE.ASP?DATE=12/25/2006
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 5:52 am
Sorry, gals – but I’m telling the truth! I’m sorry that your experience has been different! (And I mean THAT sincerely, as well.)
Molly – friend – you may not have heard it from the pulpit…but you don’t live in a super-liberal area…do you? And if it has been DECIDED on by the NAE – and the NAE has over 30 million members…you will hear it. It is coming.
Does anyone care to take on the topic of dropping abortion in favor of environmentalism? No one has answered that yet.
Please don’t misunderstand my desire to talk about the issue as fighting. I respect you (all) and care for you. See? Here’s a hug.
((())))
I, personally, do not need to be convinced to be a good steward, nor to care for people all over the world. I am,I am, I am! I do, I do, I do!
We are crunchy all the way – probably more than the Hollywood stars and politicians who try to legislate it!!!! As a general rule, we give away 20 percent of our income as a pastor’s family to missions/care/poverty relief/health care to third world nations and the individuals that we know in real life who need help. My husband would love to give more – to give away everything that is unnecessary.More than that – we give our time…sacrificially. We care about our world.
But that does not mean that we need to jump to the liberal side of life in order to compensate for those who do not care about stewardship or the poor and needy. I see many people over compensating for extremism on the right. Why not find middle ground?
Whew. I’m done. And all of that before breakfast.
Peace, my Greenie friends.
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 5:58 am
That’s a very nice article, Molly. We do those things.
And we even thought to do them all on our own – without Al Gore’s help. Legislation wasn’t necessary. 
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 6:50 am
I think Al Gore might learn a few things by reading that article Molly. I googled his house in Tennessee here it is,
.
http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/16965/
.
Not quite the downsizing that he’s asking the rest of us to do. Does anyone know if he included footage of this house in his Invetable Truth, to show the excesses of US-centric global “selfishness” that is making the rest of the world hate us?
.
I’m with Holly. Molly, move to the midwest. That’s all we hear about around here. Some cities ticket you if you have over your allotment of trash. Recycling is huge, organic is in ALL the stores.
.
I was there last week and a little old lady was asking the manager where the “cheap” mushrooms were. He pointed to the organic. She said she was on a fixed income and they were too expensive and wanted the others. She was told they no longer carried them. This was at a LARGE supermarket in the metro Detroit area. She put them back because she couldn’t afford them.
.
Alaska is just one area Molly. Don’t go just by personal experience, or the agenda driven hype by some that Christians are just becoming “green.” Some of us have made these changes long ago. Maybe Al Gore can visit our house and see how many in the “real world” live. I’m sure we can throw down a sleeping bag in the boys room since a guest room isn’t an option for us.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 7:26 am
Wow. Quite a convo.
.
Here’s a few things:
.
1. Global warming is not just an “hypothesis”. Also, if the Times Online article is the one I read the other day (by the guy who was New Scientist editor) it is full of holes – not the least being the semi-tabloid style of New Scientist writing it contains. (New Scientist is not a scientific journal and is not considered part of the literature because of it’s loose pop reporting). He cites supposedly contrary examples but doesn’t provide data on magnitude in the overall context. We know about the ozone hole over Antarctica here – our UV exposure levels have risen.
.
2. I agree that everyone doing their little bit for stewardship is desirable – not because of immanent threat but because we are designed to be good stewards – created to function that way. However, as far as GW goes, it is naive to think that us common garden folks (to use a green expression) doing our cumulative “little bits” will be the answer. The biggest problem is the industrial one. If it was just about the little bits adding up you can bet that politicians, whether right or left, would have no trouble advocating we all do our bit. The biggest contribution to GW comes from industry. Which is why there is political recalcitrance. Industry makes money, money makes the world go round (for those who lack a Christian worldview anyway).
.
3. The objections to GW are political as I see it. i.e. govt. should not regulate. But this cuts more ways than one. How can one argue for no govt intervention on an issue that affects lives when one argues for govt. intervention on abortion to save lives? If you doubt that GW affects lives – look at the undeniable rising sea levels and the islands that are becoming uninhabitable.
.
4. Is GW man-made or cyclical? The evidence points to a combination of both. And this is important – because the man-made problem exacerbates the cyclical. We can do without the man-made problem.
.
5. The fact that a scientific theory is not complete does not mean one can drive a mack truck through the holes. We know that our immune systems provide each person with unique cells. We didn’t now about theextra process that enhances the cells effectiveness – there was a hole there. But it didn’t change what we did know, didn’t refute what we knew, and was definitely not reason to refute the entire body of knowledge. It is the size of the theoretical gaps, and the area in which they occur that is to be considered. we know man is affecting the environment adversely and that the man-made problem can be severely reduced.
.
6. AIDS is now a pandemic. In some African countries over 80% of the population has HIV. It has also significantly increased in Asia. It is as bad as they have said it would be, but like many things is severely under-reported in the Western media because the cold hard fact is Westerners are more interested in Anna Nicole Smith and Tom Cruise.
.
7. There may be a some extremists talking population comtrol – but everything I’ve seen regarding GW has been about having a decent environment for fiture generations – about being able to bring children into a world that is not a mess. Where I live our environment is huge for us – we want to keep it like it looks in Lord of the Rings, and we want to continue having fish, crops, and livestock that are of good quality.
.
8. There is some hype – but the fact remains that there is a man-made contribution to the problem. One can’t argue against govt. intervention when on another impacting issue one argues for it. As for other countries such as China. Moot point – but considering the problem created by California alone it is to my mind more responsible to curtail the major contributions first.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 7:31 am
P.S. I don’t deny there is some silliness over GW – I took issue with some on my blog a while back. We don’t need to stop flying in planes. It’s large industry that is where the changes need to happen.
Posted by thereverendswife on February 17, 2007 at 7:39 am
The airline industry IS a large industry, Catez.
(BTW, hello, friend! It’s been awhile since we’ve talked! It’s good to touch base with you!)
I posted some more ramblings on examples of Christian stewardship on my blog today, if anyone is interested.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 7:51 am
Generally when discussing GW you’ll find “large inustry” meaning production, and airlines are a separate category from that. I have read your thoughts – you are quite focused on the individual as I see it. Certainly individuals can be good stewrds – but the scientific concerns and discussion are in the main about large industry – production methods and environmental consequences.
Nice to see you again too
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 8:25 am
Catez you said, “There may be a some extremists talking population comtrol – but everything I’ve seen regarding GW has been about having a decent environment for fiture generations.”
.
Here’s an article that may interest you, it discusses the connectio between evangelicals, the evinvoronment, and population control.
.
http://www.acton.org/article.php?article=205
.
You also said, “but like many things is severely under-reported in the Western media because the cold hard fact is Westerners are more interested in Anna Nicole Smith and Tom Cruise.”
.
Catez, please don’t judge US interest by the media that is shown on TV. It just isn’t an accurate barometer anymore.
Posted by thereverendswife on February 17, 2007 at 8:30 am
But personal responsibility translates into corporate responsibility.
.
And yeah, I would say that I do strongly focus on the individual. I believe that if someone tells me how to live, they need to actually live that way…whether they are teaching me about marriage, or making yogurt, or about environmentalism. I hate empty lectures…given by people who know how to talk, but not how to live. Perhaps we’re just not even having the same conversation.
.
Those of us who truly hope to change abortion know that it will not come about at a legislative level. It will come about through the individual change of heart. And it *is* happening that way. Stats show that the young people of today are much more willing to recognize the humanness of the unborn child. I find that highly encouraging, and it is happening at an individual level.
.
What do the liberals say? “You can’t legislate morality?” I agree. But you can change hearts. (Changing hearts = individual level.) But the question remains – why try to legislate environmentalism?
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 8:36 am
Holly,
You said,” But the question remains – why try to legislate environmentalism?”
.
I don’t see that suggestion in Molly’s post. You and Spunky have been discussing politics at length – but the original conversation was about the Christian response and responsibility to environmental concerns.
.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 8:41 am
Spunky,
I’m not saying no-one is arguing pop control – but it isn’t the major focus.
Who said I was judging US interest? I was referrring to Westerners – and media people themselves know Westerners would rather hear about Anna Nicole Smith. I new you’d respond
Rev’s wife – we’re having different conversations. I’m looking at it as a scientist, and looking at what it is that scientists are observing and expressing concerns about in the main.
.
I am designed to be a good steward so that is what I shold be anyway. However I do see a parallel with what Jesus said to his disciples about the Pharisees – do what they say but not what they do. i.e. if the advice is right then take it.
.
I think you are missing it here. The individual eforts add up, and if you read my points in my first comment I don’t deny that. But the real issue is the much larger industry responsibility – and alternatives. So to be fair, how about looking at that, which is distinct from us garden variety consumers doing our bit. I think you are trying to make my point say something it doesn’t.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 8:46 am
P.S. I’m trying to remember when I’ve talked with you before. Did you have a different ID?
Why legislate environmentalism? A loaded way of asking the question. But keeping with the term of reference – environmentalism is already legislated. It isn’t a free for all now. So the question is not legislation or none, but rather what is needed, why, and where.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 9:00 am
Catez, Tom Cruise and Ms. Smith are both US citizens I made the connection. My apologies.
Let me rephrase, don’t just western interest by the stuff shown by the media.
.
As far as pop-control being the major focus in US, not yet. Mostly because Americans aren’t ready to give up that much freedom just yet. But a quick glance at those who advocate a need for a cleaner environment, decreasing or “stabilizing” population numbers is usually mentioned somewhere.
.
Tonia, you said, “the original conversation was about the Christian response and responsibility to environmental concerns”
.
The Christian response and responsibility to environmental concerns is both a political and a moral response. Any Christian discussion or response must include both aspects to be complete. It may not be explicitly brought up in the original post by Molly, but it is inextricably linked to this whole issue and it was unavoidable that the discussion here would include both aspects.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:10 am
“don’t just western interest by the stuff shown by the media.”
Spunky, the media do not reflect the entire spectrum of Western interest. But… They most certaily reflect a bulk of it – because that is what generates their profits. I blogged on this way back in my NewsFlash post. They know that Anna Nicole Smith will sell newspapers and up tv ratings. The big media groups make it their business to reflect Western interest. AIDS is simply not as high a priority in the West as Tom Cruise’s wedding, Anna Nicole Smith, or whoever is having 15 minutes of fame in the latest series of Survivor.
I’ve missed you
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:17 am
“The Christian response and responsibility to environmental concerns is both a political and a moral response.”
I agree, except that I’d say it’s a political, moral, and scientific response.
Posted by Atlantic on February 17, 2007 at 9:23 am
My personal experiences are affecting my views on this, too. I come from a quite liberal environment (I’ve spent my whole life living within 60 miles of either New York or London) where left-wing environmentalism is taken completely for granted – including by me, once upon a time – and any departure from mainstream green dogma is frequently taken as prima facie evidence that one is an evil, baby-seal-clubbing, let’s-destroy-the-earth-for-fun-and-profit wingnut.
.
My own lifestyle is so crunchy-green that many liberals simply assume that I am a card-carrying leftie, and then are completely shocked when it turns out I’m a conservative Christian. It makes some of them think (I hope), but more often, they get angry, I think because some feel like they’ve been shown up as lip-service-only greenies by an evil right-winger.
I really have to take issue with “it’s the littlest things that can make the biggest difference” tagline. It just isn’t true – Catez, this is one point where I agree with you wholeheartedly.
The objections to GW are political as I see it. i.e. govt. should not regulate.
Maybe in some cases (extreme libertarians?) but it’s not normally; it’s an objection to the nature of certain regulations, actual or advocated.
[AIDS] is as bad as they have said it would be
I was at university in New York City when AIDS was identified. It is nowhere near as bad as “they” said it would be. The constant message was that AIDS was probably going to be as bad amongst the heterosexual US population as it was amongst the homosexual and IV-drug-using populations, and we had all better use condoms whenever we had sex with anyone, forever. AIDS in Africa wasn’t even on the radar.
There may be a some extremists talking population control
They don’t need extremists talking explicit population control when the idea that it’s irresponsible to have more than 0-2 children has already become so widespread. (Great article, Spunky!)
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 9:24 am
““The Christian response and responsibility to environmental concerns is both a political and a moral response.”
~Agreed. But the lectures and assumptions that Christians who prioritize this are naive and not understanding the “agenda” of the left is tiresome, to say the least.
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 9:29 am
Tonia, because the suggestion has been made to listen to Al Gore, and he is patently “political.”
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:34 am
Atlantic,
when I said AIDS is as bad as they said t would be I was referring to what they said would ocur in Africa and other under-developed parts of the world. It is as bad as they said it would be. And I think it could be conceded that the reason the US does not reflect the AIDS pandemic is due to direct prevention and maintenance, i.e. intervention. Which by analogy is exactly what is being proposed for GW – intervention.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:35 am
Holly – most people are patently political.
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 9:36 am
Catez, I am Holly formerly from Choosing Home. Remember me now?
I would say that not all scientists agree with the validity of global warming – and even those who do…do not agree that it is necessarily humans and their evil ways that cause it.
I’m off from the conversation for now…lots to do.
Can you belive that I’ve actually accomplished the cleaning of a BIG closet while talking about these things this a.m.? I love the internet…even if Al Gore DID invent it! 
Love you guys!
Posted by Robin on February 17, 2007 at 9:38 am
I am very sad to that no one has turned to Scripture for the answer to GW. God is not at all surprised by Al Gores’s findings, He is omniscient. His promise is something I can count on no matter what the scientists say. God says in
Genesis 8:22
22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”
Cold and heat, summer and winter will never cease, there are no exceptions to this promise.
Also, yes I believe that we should be good stewards of all that God has given us, but we worship God, not creation. God obviously was not being an environmentalist when He commanded the Israelites to go and chop down branches of trees
to build their booths every year.
Nehemiah 8:15
15 and that they should proclaim it and publish it in all their towns and in Jerusalem, “Go out to the hills and bring branches of olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths, as it is written.”
I do believe that as Americans we are a greedy people and that we will be judged by God for our greed and lack of simplicity, for loving things of this world, being gluttons of food, material goods and resources. But as Christians we must be very careful not to trust scientist or psudo scientist over the Word of an all knowing God. I trust in His promises alone.
Robin
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:41 am
Holly – yes I knew it was you
Some scientists don’t agree – but let’s not assume that provides scientific equivalence onthis issue. Most scientists do agree we have a reducible man-made problem, although they may hammer out some of the detail. So it is not an equivalemce where we pit euqal numbers of valid oppositions aginst each other scientifically here.
.
As I said before – it is a combination of cyclical and man-made. Man-made exacerbates the cyclical. That is something that can be reduced.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:46 am
Robin,
It might surprise you but scripture informs my worldview. Hence I have made several references to being good stewards. A Christian worldview is one that translates to every area of life. I don’t cite bible chapter and verse in scientific discussions, and to be honest don’t see the need to do so in this general discussion when the consensus here is scriptural in regards to biblical stewardship – the question is how that is to be done and where the responsibility lies.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:49 am
“But as Christians we must be very careful not to trust scientist or psudo scientist over the Word of an all knowing God.”
No-one has suggested this. I think I’d add that as Christians we are not to be suspicious and think the worst of some-one’s position just because they have a scientific basis for it either.
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 10:28 am
Ah, this has made for interesting reading over my morning cup of coffee…
Catez, thanks for your input. I was reading about the up in skin cancer you guys are experiencing due to the ozone (or, er, lack thereof). I agree with you about the AIDS thing. It’s waaay over in Africa, which pretty much translates into: we don’t care (or care very little). I appreciate your input on the science behind GW, too.
.
Spunky,
It’s not just Alaska. When we were in Utah, it was NOT “green,” and our time in Montana and Idaho wasn’t much better. I lived in TX for years and while there were greenies, there were a LOT of punch-drunk consumers right next to them. I’m surprised to hear about your area (and Holly’s) but I’m not sure that’s the “norm” for Christians, unless it’s a very very recent change.
.
Holly,
I realize that even saying the G-word (Gore) is like lighting a fuse, but consider that he might have something to say that’s not entirely political…or that, even though he was a Democrat, that he might have some thoughts worth listening to.
.
A great book I recently read was, “Collapse,” by Jared Diamond (for those who will NEVER watch Gore in a million years). Same guy who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel…
.
Personally, I like watching Gore and Michael Moore and all that stuff. I get tired of having one side tell me what the other side is saying…I don’t trust them to rightly communicate, I guess, so I’d rather hear it straight from the “others.” (That goes for both sides—if I watch Michael Moore, then I read an Ann Coulter book, etc). Most of the time I end up very surprised. (Whaddyaknow, the “others” are human, after all!)…
.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 10:53 am
Molly, this issue of being around “punch drunk” consumers is something I hear you mention again and again. Can you see that the people who promote “environmentalism” are doing just as much consuming as the people your talking about here? And that to MANY your having five children makes the “punch your drinking” far more fatal to the environment than the non-organic bananas that your neighbor is buying?
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 11:04 am
Molly, I like to read both sides as well. I know that Spunky does too, because she has said so in the past. I like to read a wide spectrum on any topic, so that I can make good decisions.
Okay. Really. I’m gone. My husband wants the computer.
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 11:22 am
Spunky, because some people are zpg, does that mean that everything else they have to say about environmentalism is wrong? (Meaning, just because some people think I shouldn’t have 5 children, doesn’t mean I’m going to refuse to listen to anything else they have to say).
.
Holly, I bet you’ll like the Collapse book. It was really interesting. One of my better library reads lately. And, again, your latest post was really cool. You guys are definitely NOT the norm!!!!!
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 11:36 am
Molly you said, “because some people are zpg, does that mean that everything else they have to say about environmentalism is wrong?”
.
I know that and that’s my point, just because you experienced some “punch drunk” consumers don’t assume that they are not environmentally conscious either. You appear to think that those who don’t actively promote an environmentally global warming philosophy or watch Inevitable Truth are doing everything they can do destroy the earth. That’s just not true either. If we were to look at Al Gore’s lifestyle or a few other “green evangelists” we’d see that they are acting far more “punch drunk” than some of your former neighbors that your so crtical of. That’s all I’m saying. If you’re going to condemn you former neighbors for being carefree consumers, surely Al Gore must go in there as well. If I recall correctly, wasn’t he ticketed a few years ago for speeding on a highway…in a Lincoln SUV. Some how controlling those CO2 emissions are just not a priority when you got to get somewhere safely.
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 12:23 pm
The initial point of this post was simply to say that environmental concerns are real, that they can’t be brushed off with a Bible verse that the earth is the Lord’s, and that we have a responsibility to be wise and generous stewards. Where I’m confused is when it comes to what exactly you (and Holly, etc) are arguing with-lol.
.
It seems that bringing up environmentalism at all pushes a lot of hot buttons, provoking knee-jerk reactions about politics, Al Gore being a yucky man, and people hating our kids…and whatever logical conversation was being had went out the window in a big yarn-ball muddle of issues, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the thrust of the initial post.
.
I don’t have the same hot buttons, I guess—mine are reserved for other areas, some of them LAVA HOT—haha! So don’t get me wrong—I’m cool with having hot buttons, but I admit to feeling like there are some logical flaws being thrown around here that you guys would NEVER put up with if they were being used to argue with an issue you agreed with.
.
*scratching her natural-shampooed head*
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Btw, Spunky, you said some things about me in your last comment that aren’t quite right and I think are going a little overboard. It’s quite possibly my fault—hard to communicate via a keyboard and a quick 1 minute break from the daily routine sometimes, but, no, I don’t think I said that anyone who doesn’t watch Gore is trying to destroy the earth, nor am I “so critical of” or “condemning my former neighbors” in the way you seem to be saying. Just wanting to clarify, and to please ask for a little more *love* in the air. I’ll try my bestest to do the same.
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Spunky?
Are we reading the same comments here? Your comments point out some excesses by your neighbors and Al Gore…are you condemning them? If you’re going to use that paint brush on Molly you better turn around and start painting yourself too.
.
Go ahead and paint me too – cause my mouth’s been going this whole time as well.
.
I think I’m going to go breathe some fresh clean air and clear my own thoughts for awhile.
.
Love you all, even when we disagree.
Posted by Tiffany on February 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm
You are very right Molly, you did talk mainly of personal Christians caring for the environment in your post and that the main thrust of your point is that we as Jesus followers should be the most concernered with taking good care of the planet. And it seems everyone on here agrees completely with that premise.
.
Your first sentence though is about global warming. And global warming is a very very very political issue. Or at least what to do about it is. We can discuss the science and its validity (although scientist often have politcal ties so that conversation could get political as well depending on what findings get brought up). But since as has been pointed out, what is put forth as solutions to man contributing to GW is things like kyoto, as well as other large scale reforming of industry, it immediately propels GW into the politcal realm. I hope that helps clarify where some of us have concerns.
.
As to everyones personsonal experiences with environmentalism and Christianity….I think the thing which can be learned here is that perhaps there isn’t a common normal. Molly, I lived my entire life in Idaho until a few years ago and everyone (including the far far far far right wing Christians) did things like recyle, reduced energy consumption, etc. They might have mocked the people who valued fish higher than humans, but they were doing their part to live gently on the earth. Now, I live in Texas and everyone is even MORE green. So, I think we can see just from our experience that perhaps there isn’t a majority of Christians on either side anyplace, but rather a cross section of people who are environmentally sensitive or not.
.
And I may be misunderstanding Spunky, but I don’t think she is saying throw the baby out with the bath water with environmentalist. In other words, just because they say you shouldn’t have more than 1 maybe 2 kids and they also say you should be energy conscience and recyle and buy organic doesn’t mean we don’t recycle, buy organic, etc. I think (emphasizing my speculation here) that what she is saying is that those same poeple would think it is all well and good that we recycle and all of that and are glad that we do, but we best stop having this many children because it is irresponsible and being a bad steward no matter if we’re using cloth diapers or organic gardening or not. Basically I think the caution is that since there are going to be political ramifications of the govt. deciding GW policy (nationally and globally) we need to be aware that population control has the potential to become an issue and we should be aware of that. Does that make sense?
.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Molly, I apogize if my post sounded unloving. I’m not even emotional about this issue. It’s just a point of interest that I have been reading quite a bit about. I’ll try and be softer in my tone and use more emoticons to convey tone.
.
As far as my previous comment, I should have been more clear I was referring to your comment at Holly’s where you said, “So from my perspective, Christians are not going to naturally be environmentally responsible…because in my world, they haven’t been. They have considered it an almost “anti-Christian” way of life, in fact. This is slowly changing, but only slowly.
So my post is written more from that perspective”
What I hear is someone who is critical of how you perceive the Christian being anti the environment because of how they live, but yet I don’t hear you equally condemn the pro-environmentalist for living in virutally the same way. Does that make sense?
.
Tonia, you asked, “Are we reading the same comments here? Your comments point out some excesses by your neighbors and Al Gore…are you condemning them? If you’re going to use that paint brush on Molly you better turn around and start painting yourself too.”
.
I think the comment box is not adequate here and there is a slight misunderstanding, let me try and answer your question. No, I’m not condemning my neighbor or Al Gore at all. They live a life that is totally permissable in America. But it is a lifestyle that they believe is hurting the earth. I pointed out my neighbor because SHE condemned ME for NOT being environmentally friendly by choosing to have so many children, yet she lives a very environmentally unfriendly lifestyle despite her talk. The same is true of Al Gore. So all I’m saying is that if Molly was going to condemn the Christian as NOT being “naturally environmentally responsible” then she should be just as critical of those with knowledge and “preach green” but live just as extravagant a lifestyle and in some cases (Al Gore) even greater excesses than most of us will ever experience.
.
It’s all a matter of where the line is drawn in being environmentally responsible lies and who gets to define it. I’m not condemning anyone for their lifestyle. It’s those who want us to become more “environmentally responsible” that are doing it for us, both personally and legislatively.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Ooops I forgot the emoticons. That was all said in a very calm tone with lots of grinning.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 3:35 pm
One more thing, Molly said, “like there are some logical flaws being thrown around here that you guys would NEVER put up with if they were being used to argue with an issue you agreed with.”
.
I love logic, please point out the flaws. I was pointing out one in your thinking, so it’s only fair that I allow myself to become the target as well.
.
Tiffany-you interpretted my comments correctly. There are MANY ramifications that go with global warming. If Molly had just talked about being environmentally conscious I would have said nothing, but her opener was that global warming was a hoax. I addressed certain ramifications that are being talked about in Congress and the UN that will have a huge impact on some of the ways we live our lives. Family planning and having a car large enough to fit us all are just two of those.
Posted by Holly on February 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I put up with a lot of faulty logic. Really!
Tiffany – you summarized well.
There are no hard feelings on my part. There is no anger, no feelings of being upset. I have purposefully tried to not hurt personal feelings. If I have, I am sorry.
I think it is good to discuss, to know where we stand on things.
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Spunky,
I really didn’t think you were condemning anyone…I was just saying I thought Molly used similar language in describing her neighbors as you did (and as I did with the people I know.) It doesn’t seem to me that anyone is “condemning” anyone.
.
Love you guys.
.
Tonia
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Your exactly right Tonia, Molly used similar language in describing her neighbors but NOT the PRO green folks who live a similar lifestyle. Saying that Christians are not naturally environmentally reponsible makes is a strange statement to make. By inference, those that are unbelievers are thus more naturally inclined to “be green.” I was just pointing out that those who are not only pre-disposed but actively engaged in “green evangelism” live in a similar fashion. And if that wasn’t what Molly meant, an opportunity to include the PRO-environmentalists who are also not naturally inclined to be “responsible” to be included.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Ooops sorry for the typos. That should be “you’re” in the first sentence.
And a few more emoticons for the great discussion Molly.
Love ya
Spunky
Posted by Leigh Ann on February 17, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Then there are the rest of us who think, “oh great, another thing to add to the list of things that will make me a “true” Christian”.
I know you are not equating it with spirituality, at least I don’t think you are. But some times I am just trying to keep my head above water while hanging on to the Rock that I can’t think of another thing to add to the list of “shoulds” or else I will lose my grip and go under. I think the issue can be seen in a sense of “tying burdens” to men’s backs that make them lose the focus of Christ and what I am in Him and not a man set mark that I need to hit.(I hope that made sense.)
That said, I am trying more and more to be a good steward with the resources that God gave me (including this world), making them my “servant”–we are commanded to treat them well (thinking OT and how they were to treat those who worked for them and the animals that they were given)–and not my masters.
I also see this along the same line of non-abortive birth control–yes, I am going there so please bear with me. I belive children are a gift and that God is fully in control of giving this gift, but I don’t think that rules out my responsibility or permits me to take on a fatalistic attitude. The same with the enviroment. I believe that God is fully in control of it and love the verse that started this whole post, but I don’t think that rules out my resposibility or permits me to take on a fatalistic attitude. I believe I am to be a good steward of it just as I am to be with my body—though I fail on both areas so many times, but God isn’t through with me yet—and what ever resources and gifts I am given including children.
But returning to my first paragraph, there are days when the environment is the last thing on my mind as I am wondering what to do with this willful child who is throwing a nuclear fit or how I can be a example of Christ before my husband’s boss’s wife (whew) who is wanting to get together–and owns several suvs, by-the-by–or how do I relate to my autistic son that Jesus loves him. So while my orthopraxy is at times not in line with my orthodoxy (did I get that right, Holly?), I am so glad that does not measure my standing in the sight of God. And I am so glad that as I strive to please Him and seek Him and His righteousness, He will reveal to me what is lacking. And if I need a few more “greens” in my diet, so be it.
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Well, I can’t speak for Molly, but I’ll be willing to say that some “pro-green” people aren’t all that “green” if you guys admit that not all the Christians you know are “green” either. (talking about the “I’ve never known a Christian who treated the earth badly on purpose.” theme) *laughs*
Sorry, I think the door is swinging both ways in this conversation. *huge grin*
OK. I’m done talking about green or not green. I’m off to dinner with my very darling husband.
Have a great weekend ladies.
Posted by Spunky on February 17, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I know that all Christians aren’t “green.” But in saying so, that assumes there is a definition of what “green” is. I’m not sure that’s true. Biblically or otherwise. Was Mary frivolously consuming perfume on the feet of Jesus? Was Judas right that the money should be spent on the poor? Jesus rightly rebuked him knowing that he was only concerned with the money box and his own thievery.
Further, whose definiton do we use for what is “punch drunk” consumerism? Mine, Molly’s, Al Gore’s, Greenpeace or Holly’s parents. (If you haven’t read her recent post, please do.) Rightly, we should be looking to the Bible for the definition. But many in the “green” movement doing recognize the bible as the standard for Creation let alone environmentalism. (Another discussion for another day.)
Interestingly the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is coming under fire for endorsing nuclear energy as an alternative fuel. Thirty years ago he said that believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust. His first effort back then was in your own neighborhood Molly, the Aluetian Islands. Now, he’s saying we have to use nucelar power to PREVENT global climate changes. That’s a seismic shift in philopshy in just thirty years. To many “green” folks his blood is no longer “green” and he’s a traitor to the cause he once helped found. And that’s why I keep saying let’s not make drastic changes just yet. THe science is still inconclusive in all of this. And as has been admitted by the founder of Greenpeace, that nuclear energy produces far less toxic emissions than the coal plants still in operation today. That was a costly blunder that has CONTRIBUTED to further global warming in the name of being “green.” Again, all I”m saying is let’s take a deep breath and wait a while before making any major changes that could result in similar mistakes down the road.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Spunky,
To be honest it seems like you want to find any argument you can. Because whether you like Al Gore or not doesn’t change the data. Man is damaging the environment and contributing to global warming which is detrimental. I have to agree with the gist of some of Molly’d comments here – just because I disagree with a persons general political disposition doesn’t mean they are never right, or never have a bona fide concern. The biblical examples ou give don’t address the issue of stewardship and responsibilitywith creation. They are individual examples. GW is not simply about individual examples.
Respectfully to some of you
GW is not actually about whether your neighbours in Texas recycle or that you do. It is about industry damage.
Whether your neighbour recycles or not, or Al Gore caught a plane or not, doesn’t change the data.
While some scientists do have political affiliations it is erroneous to carte blanche state that all do. Scientists internationally are concerned about the data. The paranoia in some Christian circles about scientists is an example of reactive partisanship and inordinate suspicion.
In fact reactive partisanship is I think the motivator to want to find an argument against examing options for reducing damage. Saying, “Well what about what they do?” doesn’t change the damage or ameliorate responsibility.
I have to go cook lamb chops now – yummy ones fromcute little lambs that munched on clean green grass.
This doesn’r make me a “Greenie”. It is quite possible to be concerned about actual environmental damage without becoming a caricature in the process.
Posted by Catez on February 17, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Well before I go,
Leigh Ann:
“I think the issue can be seen in a sense of “tying burdens” to men’s backs that make them lose the focus of Christ and what I am in Him and not a man set mark that I need to hit.”
I think that can cut both ways. It can be tying a burden on some-one that they can’t do something because of political broadbrushing.
I don’t see anyone making a law here. It’s about looking at the facts. On a personal level I don’t see being encouraged to be a good steward as any different to any other form of encouragement to conform to Christ. Certainly I wouldn’t do nothing just because some-one else is too busy. i.e. You may be too busy but why would that stop some-one else doing something. I think the “but I’m already swamped” argument is applicable for the person who makes it, but isn’t a valid discouragement to those who are prompted by the concern to respond from a Christian worldview. God designed us to be good stewards – it is intended to be part of our way of life, not an optional extra. It is an expression of living spirituality. It comes from our connection with God, as should any expression we have of our faith. So I think the caveat that we shouldn’t “spiritualise” stewardship misses the mark here. Stewardship, like any other expression, comes from the fact we are created as spiritual beings and designed to be good stewards.
Now for those lamb chops…
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Spunky,
“pro-green” was the term *you* used in your comment to me! I didn’t know I had to define it.
Sheesh. I’m starting to feel like I can’t win for losin’ here. *smile*
Truce! Peace! Uncle! and Good night!
Posted by thereverendswife on February 17, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Leigh Ann, I hear you – and I’m sorry if I have thrown another burden upon your back. That’s absolutely not the purpose – not at all.
Tonia – Of course I will admit that not all Christians are green.I do not know all of the Christians in the world – so, I’m sure there are many who are not environmentally sensitive. But I cling to my assertion that I’ve never known any who have willingly assaulted the earth. My husband says the same thing as I do. It is not very kind of you to say that I am not telling the truth.
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Holly,
I didn’t mean to say that you are lying…it’s just an amazing statement. It’s as if I said, “I’ve never known a Christian who covets.”
However, I apologize for hurting you. My last series of comments were not meant to be angry or accusatory. I did not think you were intentionally lying; I only meant to challenge your statement. My apologies.
Posted by molleth on February 17, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Leigh Ann,
Forget about green and just go with God, woman. You are doing a fine job keeping your head afloat with the load in front of you. And thanks for piping in your two cents.
To everyone else…
Honestly, I can’t even figure out what this conversation is about (nor have I been able to). I honestly feel like it’s walking through a minefield… I’d rather go play my new favorite logic puzzle (miniclip.com game)—”Blooming Gardens” —it’s very green, too.
Love,
Molly
Posted by thereverendswife on February 17, 2007 at 10:07 pm
It’s okay, Tonia. I accept. I understand. But please try to believe me. I really, really do want to have peace with you. I like you so much…what a wonderful encouragement you are to so many people, and what a great writer!
Why don’t we just be done with this? Haven’t we worn this out?
Thanks for hosting the party, Molly. Next time…a few more nachos, please.
(It’s 1:06 here, and I have to get up early to get all of those kids to church. Church is at 8:30. Ugh!!!)
Posted by thereverendswife on February 17, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Uh…your time stamp is obviously lying.
It is not 10:07 here!
Posted by tonia on February 17, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Holly,
Yes, girl!! Let’s be done, done, done.
I really did mean it when I said I love all you guys even if we disagree.
Good night ladies, for real this time.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 2:57 am
Almost done – many hours after the lamb chops (and the memory lingers, they were fantastic).
Spunky – I’m sorry for saying I thought you were using any argument you can. That was sloppy of me. I know you enough to know you think about things. What I am really thinking is that the arguments seem to dance around the central issue – they are peripheral. I do see your general point about caution, but also see that caution can be prevarication when the data is already there – I’m speaking there of the political process. And I agree with you that it is difficult discussing these things in comment boxes – though a whole lot more interesting than Tom Cruise’s wedding.
God bless you my friend.
Posted by Leigh Ann on February 18, 2007 at 7:14 am
Catez:
“I think that can cut both ways. It can be tying a burden on some-one that they can’t do something because of political broadbrushing.”
Oh, absolutely. I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. I’m talking about me here who is borderline obsessive compulsive. As a child, and even now, I had great guilt if I felt like I was failing God in some way, not doing this, that and the other right–etc., etc., ad nauseum. It is a huge crippler to me, so that sometimes I just want to go hide in a big hole so I can’t hurt anyone or anything because of something I am not doing right or because I am not doing it all. I didn’t mean it to sound like I have an excuse for not being a steward, I am trying and growing everyday. And I do think it is a spiritual issue–sorry that didn’t come across in my last comment–but I was trying to say that I (me personally) can’t define my standing before Christ by all the right things I am doing. I am striving to do right and please Him, but I know I will never be able to do this on this side of heaven. But I am trusting Him that He will lead me to those areas that I need to change. So I am not suggesting that my experience stop anyone or discouraging anyone from doing what they feel lead of the Lord to do. I am saying that there are those of us who are concerned and doing what we can, but might be look on by others, Christian or not, as not “green” enough. I am saying that for me, and others like me, (I am probably the weaker brother here) things like this, when pushed, “become” a law in our minds–another thing to do that is a man-made mark to hit to be considered “the good Christian”. So I have to approach it from a different angle.
So I agree with all that you say about being a steward and that growing out of our relationship with God, but we are all going to look different in our application of it for our individual lives. Sorry I was so unclear. I was speaking for myself and those who feel like me.
None of you have placed a burden on me. I was just trying to bring the view of some of the rest of us; those of us that have guilt problems over our slightest failings–green or otherwise
.
Posted by Spunky on February 18, 2007 at 7:56 am
Catez, I’m not dancing around the issue, I’m saying the central issues are not yet proven to warrant the “crisis” call for immediate action that could as Atlantic pointed out, and the founder of Greenpeace admits can be more costly in the long run that’s all.
The other point I was making was directly to Molly, who seemed to paint Christians as anti-environment based on her experience, but is reluctant to see the same sorts of behavior in some of the champions of environmentalism.
Tonia, in commenting on your question, I was bringing around a central question that Gracie asked of Molly when she said, “Molly, I am curious to know what you would consider responsible stewardship?” Molly said she knew a lot of Christians who were not “naturally environmentally conscious.” What exactly does that “not environmentally conscious” mean? Molly hasn’t said.
Molly, you said, “Honestly, I can’t even figure out what this conversation is about (nor have I been able to). I honestly feel like it’s walking through a minefield… ”
You opened the minefield Molly. That’s the nature of blogging. Enter at your own risk.
When you address fellow Christians as not being “environmentally conscious” I was just asking as Gracie did, where you draw the line? Some would say Al Gore is totally environmentally conscious, but look at the lifestyle he lives. Is it any better than your friends in the various states you have lived that you say are not “naturally environmentally conscious?” What is the standard you use for “environmentally conscious?” It was your post called us all to be more “green”, and that’s why I’m asking. What exactly are you hoping Christians do that would make them more green? And do you separate that from global warming policy?
Further, I’m not saying IGNORE what GW folks say say and don’t listen to them because of how they live, but shouldn’t the two match up? And when they don’t we should ask why? The left does it to hypocritical Christians (and rightly so) all the time.
Also, I do hope your last comment doesn’t mean you won’t be pointing out the logical flaws you saw, that some of us would NEVER tolerate? I was looking forward to hearing them. And it’s a little unfair to say there are flaws but leave us hanging about what they were.
Posted by molleth on February 18, 2007 at 9:55 am
Spunky has said:
“I’d believe more of the global warming rhetoric if China and India were required to abide by the Kyoto treaty that they signed but don’t have to follow.”
and (re the “stars”):
“If they really want us to believe the hype they’ve got to start walking the walk themselves and cut back themselves.”
Spunky seems to be saying that global warming is not worth considering an issue until the famous (and other countries) act like it is (by whichever actions she deems acceptable). Holly made the same point in her recent post.
While making some good observations (that would make an interesting side conversation), this is still not a logical argument against environmentalism or global warming.
It’s a Personal Attack, also known as Abusive Ad Hominem (on the rich and famous advocates of environmental responsibility, along the lines of: “when you act like I think you should act, then I’ll look at and/or believe the data.”
You can read about this type of logical fallacy right here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html A brief quote: …It is best to focus one’s attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
These arguments about Al Gore, etc, are interesting, but they are side issues. They serve to detract from the real issue, and have nothing to do with the actual content of the issue.
Spunky said,
“…by allowing India and China to be exempt from the Kyoto Treaty they would be undoing the very things we’re attempting to solve with their toxic emissions. Unless, of course, toxic emissions, wasn’t what they architects of global warming were really after. Something to think about.”
This appears to be an allusion to a conspiracy theory of sorts by Spunky, insinuating that global warming is something leaders/conspirators have been “architecting” in order to achieve an end (that apparently has little to do with helping the environment).
There are a few problems with this, one of which is called a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. You can read more about here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html (This same fallacy is employed on Gore when one says that his views on global warming cannot be heard because of his political views).
Again, this detracts from the data of global warming by accusing the (bulk of the) scientific body as being either duped into a scheme, or scheming themselves, of having false ends and therefore skewing the data. This is possible, of course (anything is possible), but on such a large scale as global warming (many scientists, world wide, are coming up with global warming evidences), such a statement would need to be carefully stated and well-backed up, not casually tossed out as fact.
Spunky has said,
“So all I’m saying is that if Molly was going to condemn the Christian as NOT being “naturally environmentally responsible” then she should be just as critical of those with knowledge and “preach green” but live just as extravagant a lifestyle and in some cases (Al Gore) even greater excesses than most of us will ever experience.”
*Ahem*
Please hear this: I have not condemned “the Christian.” I have simply said I have known some Christians who were not environmentally responsible.
I gave an example of how I walked up on the director of my Bible College littering and then making me feel stupid for thinking that was something to be surprised about (I only cared because I was “immature in my faith.”). My grandfather (not a Christian) used to regularly dump oil down the drains in his street. Shall I go on…? My church used to (laughingly, and I laughed back) make fun of me for buying organic…OFTEN (before the “organic is cool” thing set in a few years back).
Some of my (Christian) relatives never failed to set me straight on how ridiculous it was to buy organic. My non-Christian relatives did too, for that matter. Saying the word, “environmentalist,” in oil-rich Alaska has been, up to recently, worse that the F-word, for Christians and non-Christians alike.
I am simply saying that as Christians, being good stewards should be a natural thing—-not using the earth without thought but utilizing the earth with care. There was no “condemnation” of all Christians going on at all. (I might not like the choices that some people I know have made, like my grandpa dumping his oil, but I am not *condemning* them).
And, again, to point out arguments that you would never stand for were they made against issues you feel are important, let’s look at the lifestyle that environmentalists might live. You have been saying that until they change, the data on global warming is not worth being looked at. But I would posit that this is a side issue. It has nothing to do with the actual data.
To suggest it does is like saying that because SOME homeschoolers fail or are abusive, ALL homeschoolers should be suspect, or that the CONCEPT of homeschooling itself is not worth looking at. Now, I have seen you fight AGAINST that type of argument with passion, Spunky, on your former blog, yet you are using it here repeatedly.
I hope this helps clarify where I’m coming from. I could go on and get into more quotes, but I’m really not looking for a fight, here, or to be nasty, but just to help clarify a few of my comments.
Warmly,
Molly
Posted by Spunky on February 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Okay Molly, let’s take this as a point by point
1.
Spunky seems to be saying that global warming is not worth considering an issue until the famous (and other countries) act like it is (by whichever actions she deems acceptable). Holly made the same point in her recent post.
That was not an argument against GW, just the “hype” of global warming. I’m agnostic on the whole issue, taking a let’s wait and investigate further before we make huge changes that could have greater consequences than the problems we’re trying to fix. As speakers credibility is definitely an issue when they give US a call to action, but don’t abide by it themselves. (ala Ted Haggard)
Also perhaps you may have missed my last comment where I said, “I’m not saying IGNORE what GW folks say say and don’t listen to them because of how they live,”
I realized that their would be a perception that I would ignore the information based on their credibility so I specifically put that in. So that you wouldn’t think I was using a logical fallacy.
2. Kyoto.
“This appears to be an allusion to a conspiracy theory of sorts by Spunky,”
This isn’t a conspiracy “theory” but fact, they don’t have to abide by the treaty. Again if GW is such a crisis, why would we allow two of the largest countries to make the same mistakes we made with immunity? Their “indurstrialization” would negate our efforts to control climate change. If GW is such a “crisis” then the participation of ALL countries would be needed to insure successful reolution of global warming. No conspiracy here, just an observation with a question asking why?
Further, I never said I wouldn’t listen to Gore because of his political views. I again refer you to my last comment I said just the opposite.
3. Molly said, “I have not condemned “the Christian.” I have simply said I have known some Christians who were not environmentally responsible”
Okay, I’ll grant that condmen is a strong word. But you clearly don’t appear to approve of the way some Christians are choosing to live their lives in a “punk drunk” way. Correct? All I’m saying is that the environmentalists live in a similar fashion. Do you approve of them or are they “punk drunk” too? And if that’s the case why just single out the Christain?
4. I am simply saying that as Christians, being good stewards should be a natural thing
Again I ask what is being a good steward and who defines that? Human nature is selfish and the flesh is weak. Being good at anything let alone stewardship is NOT in our nature, Christian or not. Being good stewards is a regenerated idea. And even when we are regenerated their is still growth to take place. We’re not completely taken hold yet, but we press on to the high calling. So I’m sorry that the Christians laughed at you buying organic. But are they doing other environmentally positive things that you may not be that you could learn from them? It seems to me that you have incredible tolerance for the unbeliever who loves GW, but not as much for Christian who loves the Lord but may not quite buy into all the hype of GW and thus not live according to your standard of “good steward.”
5. “You have been saying that until they change, the data on global warming is not worth being looked at”
Again, I refer you to my last comment? It said, I’m not saying IGNORE what GW folks say say and don’t listen to them because of how they live, but shouldn’t the two match up? And when they don’t we should ask why? The left does it to hypocritical Christians (and rightly so) all the time.
To be honest I haven’t even articulated my position completely on GW. I commented because of this statement where you said,
” If the Global Warming folks are wrong, no big deal. But if they’re right, and we were just sitting on our rear ends letting our children’s world become a living nightmare, then that’s a problem. ”
It’s not NO big deal if the environmentalists are wrong. That’s why I linked to the Greenpeace founder. His blunder was and continues to be costly for the environement. Further, the implication in your comment is that too many of us are doing abolutely nothing leaving the world to become a living nightmare. I ask you, what would like the Christian to do and how would you direct them to get off their “rear ends?” to make this world a better place? What would a pastor in the pulpit say to his congregation that would please you? Buy organic, and buy a cow for milk? Give up the internet and pick up trash on the highway with the extra time? Buy a hybrid vehicle? Have less kids so you can buy a Yugo? Forgo air travel to places like Palm Springs and be content to stay in one place?
I’m wondering where the line is Molly? That’s all. Ideas? Your original post calls us to action, what is the action you would like to see?
Posted by gracie on February 18, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Wow! The discussion is still going? Kudos, Molly, for not closing it. There’s a whole lotta thinking goin’ on here…that’s why I’ve jumped back in.
I don’t think Al Gore’s credibility on this issue can be dismissed. It is his movie that is being recommended. This movie is also being shown as gospel truth throughout California school districts to elementary grade students.
During his run for president in 2000, he was caught in fabrication after fabrication when trying to illustrate his ideologies. The t.v. media mostly ignored this, but the internet did not.
His lack of care for his own property were exposed when the tenants finally went to the media after their letters to Gore’s property managers complaining of mold and much-needed home repairs going unanswered.
These behaviors are a direct contradiction to his public ‘preaching’ about environmental issues, so I don’t believe that exposing them would be an ad hominem attack…I’m not condemning, or even trying to get anyone to dislike the man! Seriously.
If you were to hire someone to watch over children, you would want to make sure they had some credibility, would you not? To check someone’s record and qualifications for such a job would require that they had not behaved inappropriately with children at some point in their lives. Should their past behaviors be dismissed with so much at stake?
That Gore continues to live in a way which is definitely not environmentally-friendly, does his movie still bear weight?
Really, I have nothing against mansions and jets, anyone who works for their money doesn’t need my permission to spend it anyway they please…but, again, how is it possible for them to tell me to live without my SUV?
I reiterate that we must be careful how we get our information. Movies are a strong visual tool for changing minds and thus changing policy and most of us will never realize the manipulation behind them. Oscars are given out to movie editors for a reason, friends. If someone were to film a day in my life, they could make me look like the Marquis de Sade or Mary Poppins, depending on their ideology.
Thanks again, Molly, for keeping this open for discussion.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Spunky,
You are dancing around the issue.
“I’m saying the central issues are not yet proven to warrant the “crisis” call for immediate action”
That is a parochial view. There is plenty of evidence already. Regions of Africa have experienced dust bowl transformation that they have not experienced before. Islands are disappearing, climate change has become a fact of life. The data is there from around the globe. It is a disengenuous argument that ignores all that and acts as if none of it existed.
Some of it is crisis. Not for you where you live perhaps – your living area isn’t disappearing under the sea. Are the UV exposure levels where you live significantly increased because you live near a whacking great man-made hole in the ozone layer?
Your argument continually confuses environmentalists with scientists, as if scientists are all environmentalsists and vice versa. The issue rests on scientific data – not paranoia about greenies. For the record, the scientists are not all environmentalists. They are scientists.
This is not something that hasn’t been given time and consideration. The data and observations have been collated and analysed for years now. The international scientific and political discussions have been going on for years too. It is simply not reflective of the evidence or the process to say that the process has not been given time and weighed with consideration. This has nothing to do with one man in the Greens who made a blunder. He is not the internatinal scientific community and is a red herring to the real issue. At best using him as an example is akin to a folk story next to an encyclopedia – because, let’s get this straight – it is not about what greenies are saying, but what scientists internationally are evidencing.
I may have to leave it there. But I do think you are dancing around the issue. and I think political partisanship is out of place on such an obvious issue in which political co-operation is what is required.
Posted by Paul on February 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm
wow…
To the Q what action you should take my response would be to the degree you feel your ethics as a christian convinces you too. In terms of action I would suggest it is worth considering all aspects of your life, from your voting to your vehicle and maybe involving God in where you can make changes to your life.
Someone mentioned kyoto – it is mainly symbolic, carbon emissions need to be lower but many nations have signed up to it purely because it is a place to start and a moral platform to build from. It is not a conspiracy to reduce US economic strength no more than it is to reduce that of the UK’s who have signed up to it. And whilst i agree that china and india need to abide by the targets I find it encouraging that the UK can do so by showing the example we have set and working with them [incidentally generating £ for the economy in carbon reducing industries]. In the the meantime places like india can point to carbon per head and still say they are behind the USA so why should the bother – perhaps the lesson is that if we start first live out lives that encourage sensible sustainable economic, environment, social lifestlyes and policies then maybe that has more benefit in the long run for all of us?
At the end of the day each of us will act within the scope of our own moral/ethical convictions/responsibility that we feel and we choose that for ourselves…
Posts like this one highlight for me the range of response, the high degree of action that many of us take already and the consideration of how I can be christian as part of global village rather than just within the context of my own tribe…
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Gracie,
If you seriously think that GW and environmental damage rests on Al Gore’s personal credibility then you have missed it. Have you read the scientific literature and reports? It seems to me from reading your comment that you think it all comes down to one man and a movie.
As for those who may not “practise what they preach” – this doesn’t make one iota of difference to environemtnal damage. The damage is still there and still happening. But focusing on one man and a movie as if that were the essence of the data can be a good way to distract from that.
And then… wow, if some of these people lived much simpler would you get rid of your SUV? Because innnate in your position is that if famous people do certain things you will – your spiritaul response would then be about doing what famous people do. Not abut the evidence and the responsibility.
The reality is that we are meant to be stewards anyway. The normal Christian life is one where we encourage each other to live as God designed us to be.
As far as GW goes it’s an industry damage issue. Which has nothing to do with what you think of Al Gore or whether he lives how you think he should. Absolutely nothing to do with it.
Some of the comments here seem to be about “my lifestyle” and “their lifestyle”. As if GW hinges on personal comparisons. Which just strikes me as really missing the issue and turning it into some sort of pop culture competition, when it is so obviously based on much more than that.
Posted by Spunky on February 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Catez, there are scientists on both sides of this issue. They all have strong credentials and hold to strict scientific procedures that contradict the findings of the other. I don’t think we are at the point yet where we have to accept global warming as completely true. Obviously you feel differently. So be it. But the idea that my view is “parochial” or dancing around the issue simply because I haven’t accepted global warming as fact and still consider it a hypothesis is what shuts down all discussion that may counter global warming arguments. That is most unfortunate.
Posted by Spunky on February 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Grace said, “Movies are a strong visual tool for changing minds and thus changing policy and most of us will never realize the manipulation behind them. ”
This is so true and one of the main reasons I avoid presentations of this sort by the right and the left. It is too easy to play fast and loose with facts and be drawn into emotional arguments without realizing it. Reading the material for ourselves, checking sources, and verifying information is the best way to make a sound decision. And that is all I’ve been advocating here. Let’s read the data and study this for a while. And as I said a bazillion comments ago, when someone says “ACT NOW or else” its the time NOT to act but sit and think a while.
Posted by gracie on February 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Catez,
I don’t think this movie or this man has much to do with environmental damage besides all the gas that comes out of his mouth (laugh with me here )
I was addressing the recommendation of his movie to an otherwise unsuspecting audience. I’m sorry you read into that way. But, this man and this movie are distracting from the essence of the data without my little ol’ comment, because it is being used as a scientific tool for schoolchildren and the politically naive.
I must also take issue that my position is that my lifestyle depends upon Gore making changes in his. You sound reactionary here. I was illustrating the absurdity of someone preaching a lifestyle to others which he himself does not live out.
I understand the reality of stewardship, Catez, I just don’t understand the degree to which you would ‘encourage’ me to live as God designed.
My comments on Gore’s credibility are not the whole of this debate. They were meant to be a part and one which I brought to light because not everyone has the information they need to make informed decisions…such as voting. I thought that is the point of such forums as this.
Believe me, I’m not trying to throw up a smoke screen in front of your arguments, I would not want to do that to anyone. I read all your comments. I see that you believe scientific data points to industry as the cause of GW.
You said that political partinsanship is out of place on this issue, but I would disagree. Partisanship is not necessarily bad here. It keeps one side from dominating and forces us all to dig deep for clarity and truth. Which is what we are doing here, yes?
Politics cannot be separated from GW. As much as scientists believe they are above the political fray, they are not. Many get their research grants from governments…as long as their data matches the desired results. It is and always has been a sad reality, but one we must consider in this debate.
Thank you for forcing clarity here.
“Iron sharpens iron..”
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Spunky,
“Catez, there are scientists on both sides of this issue. They all have strong credentials and hold to strict scientific procedures that contradict the findings of the other.”
I have already responded to this argument. It seems to me that this is a degree of just wanting to find any argument because you keep repeating certain things as if they haven’t been responded to.
The majority of scientists who can knowledgeably contribute on this are agreed on the central issue. There is not, as I said previously, scientific equivalence here. i.e. there are not equally competing opposites in terms of data. It is not accurate to say there are, and to be honest it irks me a little that you keep plugging a position with this when it is inaccurate.
With respect to you, why should the international community wait because you are not up to speed? They have spent years on this already. The data is there, the major probems are identified.
“But the idea that my view is “parochial” or dancing around the issue simply because I haven’t accepted global warming as fact and still consider it a hypothesis is what shuts down all discussion that may counter global warming arguments.”
I don’t appreciate that my friend. It seems to me that you want to shut down any reasonable encouragemernt to take the undeniable facts seriously. You do dance around the issue. You call it a “hypothesis”. It is more than a hypothesis, and I don’t see how you could scientifically categorise it as such when it isn’t. And again, I responded to that previously. I don’t appreciate you trying to make me look like I am “shutting down” resasonable discussion. I’m tired of hearing the same inaccuracies though. Just to be honest.
Gracie,
I’m not being “reactionary” at all. I hope that isn’t an attempt to cast me into some caricature. I am getting bored with seeing the same arguments being repeated throughout the thread when others have already hashed them out. I admit my response came from feeling that way. It has been quite a long discussion. Contrary to the anti-science paranoia that besets some Christian circles, the reality is that scientists internationally are presenting data which adds up to the obvious. I am looking at this as a Christian and as a scientist. I don’t have time to give a detailed account of how the scientific process works, or how the international findings are interconnected. Suffice to say everything does not hinge on internal partisan politics in the US and what movies school children watch. A concern for you personally perhaps, but not relevant to consideration of the global data and discussion.
“Many get their research grants from governments…as long as their data matches the desired results.”
Well they are expected to get results. But I’ve yet to come across a govt. that desired evidence that man-made environmental damage contributes to global warming. They desire to hear the opposite – it would save them time, and money. The reality is that they have heard results they didn’t desire, but having heard them want to be responsible. Well most want to be anyway.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 6:11 pm
“And as I said a bazillion comments ago, when someone says “ACT NOW or else” its the time NOT to act but sit and think a while.”
Hardly. it depends on the information and the nature of the “or else”. Unless you advocate sitting and having a good long think if your house catches fire, or you live right next to the beach when a tsunami warning comes in. Some things do need a process of action to begin now.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Gracie,
“I just don’t understand the degree to which you would ‘encourage’ me to live as God designed.”
I don’t recall mentioning any degree. I simply note that we encourage each other to live as God designed. Which doesn’t mean filtering everything through it’s respective left or right wing politically correct barometer before being able to consider it. And that really goes both ways.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I think this will be my final comment, because believe it or not this isn’t the bigest issue on my mind, and there are other things I give priority to.
Here’s an analogy. Some-one decides homeschooling as an eduactional option is a unproven hypothesis. They argue that it is unproven and shouldn’t be bought into. They say, “We should wait and not give credence to homeschooling just because certain individuals say so – they have a poltical agenda for wanting homeschooling”.
You say in response, “But we’ve been homeschooling for years. It works. We have the results to show it works”.
They say, “Well there are divided opinions on homeschooling. Not everyone agrees about it, and some poeple who homeschooled don’t now. And some homeschooled children didn’t get a good education.”
You say, “But for those who have done it well is a viable way of educating their children”.
They say, “We should consider the data and wait, and not just approve it and rush into it”.
You say, “But we’ve been doing it for years and officials have seen the data and we’ve had all sorts of discussions for years.”
They say, “You are trying to shut down opposition to the hypothesis of homeschooling”.
You say, “But it’s not a hypothesis. It’s a factual reality that homeschooling works as an education alternative”.
They say, “Some people who advocate homeschooling don’t teach their own children well. They don’t practise what they preach.”
You say, “But….”
If you see what I mean.
Posted by gracie on February 18, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“Contrary to the anti-science paranoia that besets some Christian circles,”
Would that be my circle, Catez?
When one is accused of paranoia, it makes one’s arguments rather pointless. How many governments have you come across? How do you know their desire for scientific data to refute man-made GW? I’m sorry to sound combative, I don’t mean to, but I do have a stake in this debate, and you don’t need to give a detailed account of the scientific process or how it’s internationally interconnected to put me in my place.
The international scientific community conntains many scientist who do not suscribe to Kyoto, and while I, too, believe in a wait and see attitude towards government intervention, Kyoto is a terrible, unworkable and ultimately socialist treaty which would cause more damage than the problems it’s trying to solve. For this very reason I bring up the politics.
Kyoto does hinge on approval of governments and in the U.S. that means school children who are indoctrinated by movies and grow up to vote, or their politically naive parents who make their decisions based on what their kids are learning in school.
This isn’t isolationist. If the U.S. capitulates on Kyoto our economy will collapse–to the detriment of poorer countries, I might add.
Kyoto is where I see all this leading, and I don’t think it is paranoia or even a stretch of the imagination to follow the money.
Bjorn Lomborg, a prof. of poly-sci at the University of Aarhus in Sweden and author of ‘Global Crises, Global Solutions’, was a former greenpeace activist and is a credentialed scientist. He has an article online at Telegraph.co.uk, where he states that if everyone stuck to Kyoto for the rest of the century, the change (in GW) would be almost immeasurable at the cost of 150 billion dollars a year. His point is to prioritize what CAN be done without bankrupting countries and removing our freedoms.
I can’t possible address all points of this debate, as I’m sure you can’t. But, when it comes to GW as a means to drive socialism and in my opinion that is what Kyoto is, why, then I must try to engage it, at the risk of not being ‘relevant to the global data or discussion.’
God Bless us both in our efforts.
Posted by gracie on February 18, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Posted by gracie on February 18, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Catez,
I just read through these last comments again and realized you never mentioned Kyoto. My apologies. I made the assumption that you subscribed to it as a solution. Assumptions are the bane of a tired mind.
Please forgive me.
Posted by Catez on February 18, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“Would that be my circle, Catez?”
You are getting too personal Gracie. I’ve no idea what circles you move in. I’d like to leave this now – I’ve already had a lot of discussion here with others. Thanks.
Posted by gracie on February 19, 2007 at 8:13 am
I see that. Again, my apologies. I must learn not to make comments so late. It has been a long and interesting discussion. Thanks to all.
Posted by Spunky on February 19, 2007 at 10:58 am
Catez, I realize you’ve ended your conversation but for the benefit of others who might still be reading, the analogy to homeschooling is slightly flawed. Homeschooling is an action not a hypothesis. A parent homeschools like a person eats. I don’t “global warm.” No one does. Global warming is the result of an action? But what is the action. That’s where the debate and the “hypothesis” comes in. ANd is the result permanent or cyclical? That’s another point where the hypothesis comes in.
Molly, I’d love to at some point hear your thoughts on the comments I made.
Posted by molleth on February 19, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Um, no thanks from me.
It’s not because I don’t have anything to say, but more like my life is overflowing and I feel like this conversation, in order to get anywhere (meanin, in order for both sides to actually *hear* eachother, which isn’t really happening as of yet), would require massive amounts of time and patience, both of which would probably be put to better use elsewhere in my life. 
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Spunky,
The whole point of the analogy is the type of argument. GW would fit the scientific theory criteria, not hypothesis. I’m sorry but I don’t think it’s responsible to keep calling it an hypothesis.
But here’s the point of my comment – you say homeschooling is not an hypothesis. But they say, “homeschooling is an hypothesis”. And round and round it goes because they insist on saying something that is not accurate.
Of course global warming is an action as well as a result. The planet is actively warming overall. Industry is contributing to warming the globe. Now you are saying what? – that we don’t know why and how that is happening? Your “flaw’ is a matter of semantics. I could say “homeschool education is not an action. It is the result. It’s how you homeschool that is the question”. It’s splitting hairs to do that when it involves both action and result in it’s description, and the argument is being made to try and dismiss homeschooling as viable.
I do need to be done with this. Fortunately many people around the world can look at the damage to the environment and are interested in doing something to look after it. And that is great
I’m interested to hear the different ideas they have that are helpful.
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Gracie,
Understood. Thanks for that. It has been a long one!
Posted by Spunky on February 19, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I’ll let the analogy rest Catez. Since that’s all it was. Nice chatting with you.
Molly, I must say I’m a bit disappointed. I have listened and continue to listen to your “side” and answered your points. I’ve read the links you mentioned (and you did the same?). It’s easy to point and say those people are not doing enough, but seems to be a bit of a cop out not to continue with exactly what they should be doing that would help. Note: I’m not asking you to solve GW but to teach us all how to become more “environmentally responsible” and good stewards. Something you obviously see a lot of Chrisitans failing at. So I was a little sad to see that you think I’m not listening when in fact I gave you opportunity to teach me and others where we may be failing. Your orginal post asked us to get off our “rear ends” I’m just asking for what?
Posted by Spunky on February 19, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Molly, that last post was written calmly and in a spirit of friendship and learning. Not to goad you into a debate. I’m genuinely interested in where I can learn and grow to become more environmentally conscious. And the best way I learn is from those who have strong opinions. Since you were the one who said we need to be “good stewars” you were the one I asked what it meant to be a “good steward.” to you.
Love ya,
Spunky
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Spunky,
“Since that was all it was”. If you are letting it rest then please do so. A good analogy cuts through the mustard. Mine did.
Posted by Spunky on February 19, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Okay Catez I’ll bite, the analogy is flawed not just semanitcally because homeschooling education has a known cause…homeschooling. It’s not a hpothesis but an action like eating.
Global warming doesn’t have one known cause like homeschooling. People don’t wake up going I’m going to “global warm” today like they do with homeschooling. They wake up and drive cars, and build things in factories. Things you and others claim cause global warming. You believe their theories as fact, I don’t. Not yet. Other possibilities are out there like cyclical trends, that’s why we see warming trends prior to the industrial revolution. You may not believe that hypothesis. For something to become a theory it has to do a lot more than just be stated over and over again by “experts.”
Homeschool education does NOT have theories about what causes it. There is only one known cause. People wake up and say I’m going to homeschool today. That’s why this analogy breaks down. You want to see the explanations as more than what they are, I’m not ready to do so.
You can argue that homeschooling causes things that are detrimental to the child (and many do), in the same way that you can say that driving a car causes certain things like global warming. But the proof would have to be on the facts that CO2 emissions from cars cause the global warming effect, and I’m just not ready to make that leap. To me the fact that CO2 emissions causes global warming is still a hypothesis. The fact that homeschooling causes a homeschool education is not a hypothesis, it’s a fact. That’s why the analogy breaks down. To be analogous you should be saying we need to question whether people should use cars as a viable option for travel just as homeschooling is a viable option for education. But you cannot equate global warming to homeschooling. They are just not analogous.
Posted by chewymom on February 19, 2007 at 6:02 pm
After a weekend away, I’m coming back into this. I’ve spent WAAAAAY too much time reading the comments, and now my head is spinning.
I think being a good steward looks different for different folks. All I can do is describe my “neighborhood,” which is Alabama. (And I have lived in four other southern cities besides my current residence, and they are all pretty much the same with the possible exception of Atlanta.)
Christians–the ones who should be showing the MOST love for the earth, in my opinion, because our loving Heavenly Father has given this to us as a gift and specifically told us to take care of it–are characterized by the following: (and I’m going to list here things I see at my current church). Most drive a large SUV (think Suburban, even if there are only two kids in the family) with a big “W” sticker on the back. Until six months ago, the church regularly threw away zillions of aluminum cans each week (that changed when one lady decided to put out trash cans with a sign saying “recycle for missions”). We exclusively use styrofoam plates and cups, disposable plastic ware, etc. for every church function–at least two per week. Over 80% of the congregation advertises that we are gluttonous (in other words, we’re all fat). I have been called a hippie (repeatedly) for using cloth diapers, wearing a sling, buying vegetables from a CSA, oh–and not wearing makeup most of the time (although that’s an “allergic” stance for me, rather than environmental
). Kids ride ATVs and motorbikes around as a form of recreation, rather than shooting basketballs or playing football. Men brag about “taking dominion” over the earth when they go on a big hunting trip (which they ALL do quite regularly–seriously, my DH is one of the only men I know who doesn’t hunt). Many families have more vehicles than drivers. People do not carpool, and we have no bus system in the public schools, so literally every parent sits in the carpool line at each school, car running (because it is either too hot or too cold to turn off the engine).
If most left-wing environmentalists are looking at my area, then I can see why they are alarmed at the birth-rate of Christians. (And I’m saying this as a mom of five, so I’m not anti-large families.) If we all raised our kids like I’ve described above, then even if GW isn’t an issue, we’ll run out of inhabitable earth because of the landfills required to contain the garbage!
All that to say, the view from where I live is very similar to Molly’s, it seems, and I guess that’s why I read her blog and her comments and think, “AMEN! PREACH IT SISTER!” That’s the message that needs to get across in my neck of the woods.
Posted by Holly on February 19, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Still going? Wow!
Since my name has continued to be brought up in accusatory terms, I will reply.
It appears to me that some of you feel that others of us (er…me) are not intellectual enough to grasp the “science” of this delicate topic. Hooey. I’d rather be simple and believe that the “Good News of Jesus Christ” and saved souls and eternity trumps environmentalism every time.
I will answer your question – minus my thoughts on Al Gore’s lifestyle…although one must wonder how much he must believe it if he doesn’t live it.
I don’t believe the science on global warming or on the immediate demise of the earth.
When have scientists EVER lied about anything? you may ask? When has their agenda ever hurt our children? (And I know you deny an agenda.)
What about the issue of creation and evolution? Or perhaps you now believe that we have descended from monkies because ALL of the reputable scientists on a global level say it is true? Scientists couldn’t…LIE….to us (gasp!) could they! You are elevating the scientist above his/her Creator! The scriptures warn against this!
Since I have answered your questions sans Al Gore…(talk about caricutures…)will any of you look inside yourself and answer my question?
I have asked this same question at least twice here, and once on my blog. NO ONE has answered.
Why have evangelical, post-evangelical and emergent Christians elevated environmental issues above the cause of saving innocent human lives? Why is abortion “out” as an issue? It was a conscious decision to do so…why was it made?
I won’t be back to read your answers…I really can’t take this…guess I’m just not cut out for the intellectual stuff…so I’ll just go back to being a mommy and you can pat me on the head patronizingly.
But ask yourself my question – okay? Think about it.
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Spumky,
Actually I really wasn’t looking for a bite. I really meant it when I said if you are letting it rest then please do so. So please don’t project your desire for continued argument onto me.
“Homeschooling education has a known cause – homeschooling”. Well that’s what you and others claim and want me to believe. I’m not convinced by your hypothesis. In other words – your argument is completely subjective Spunky. Anyone can just discount factual evidence because they don’t like it.
“Global warming doesn’t have one known cause like homeschooling. People don’t wake up going I’m going to “global warm”
That’s completely irrelevant to what my analogy is about. You are introducing things to it that have no bearing on the point made. In the analogy It doesn’t matter whether people do it consciously or not – they still do it, and the point of the analogy was the ridiculous arguments and denial of the evidence. You are now trying to rewrite the analogy to say tings it doesn’t say – I didn’t say anything about whether people do it consciously or not. I simply revealed the type of arguing. Which is to dance around the issue and go onto distractions, i.e. instead of taking the point of the analogy have a diversion about how it was constructed.
The scientific consensus on GW from scientists in fields that directly relate to it is that it exists, it is happening, and their are identified and preventable man-made causes. And I think the objections to that are not factual, or frankly even about the science – but come from political partisanship.
As for me and “others” making “claims” – subjective language. Nothing to do with the evidence. But I should disregard scientists from around the world because some internet pundits have a political beef? I think not.
Anyway, I have a blog and I think I’ll discuss the environment there if I want to do so. Quite a few people would be interested I think.
Thanks Molly. I hadn’t thought of blogging on the environment but I am going to give it some consideration as being one of my topics. For people interested in the process of learning.
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Holly,
What on earth are you talking about? I can tell you that apart from way back when we commented to each other here, none of my comments name you, or have anything to do with you. Really. You weren’t even in my mind. Sorry – but just responding to things said to me (or misrepresentatively about me ) on this thread has been my focus, and my comments have been to do with general observations made well before this little thread on the internet.
You seem to have suddenly stormed in and made statements which I think you may be throwing at me. I read a blog post from rev’s wife way back when she mentioned it on this thread – and am still confused as to whether you are her or there are two Holly’s. But anyway – I had completely forgotten about that post on her (your?) blog. None of my comments here are in response to it except one where I briefly commented to rev’s wife on it.
Your comment above seems emotive and personal. And honestly – trying to smear all scientists because of evolution – as if scientists in another field, with direct evidence (as opposed to macro evolution which lacks direct evidence) cannot say anything right.
The facts about global warming are comprehendable. That doesn’t mean everyone understands the scientific method or all details of the data. But when those trying in essence to obfuscate the evidence make inaccurate statements about science then I think it should be pointed out.
But mostly – wow – I have been reading this thread and either I missed some-one referring directly to you or you are making a huge assumption. Please be assured that my comments have been made having nothing to do with you at all in my thoughts. On the other hand – you seem to have come in with an emotive blast at anyone seeking scientific accuracy. Since you have, I will add that not everyone does understand the scientific method or the details of the data. And there is nothing wrong with that being pointed out either. I don’t understand how a jaguar car engine works exactly. I have no problem admitting it. One can admit they don’t understand something, admit they do, know some of it, and/or desire to learn more. But if it is going to be criticised then I would think a person would at least know what the data says. Which is not about you – it is quite simply common sense.
Holly – really, I don’t know what you are on about. I can only speak for myself – as far as my comments go they have nothing to do with whatever you may have said. I’m considering posting on my own blog anyway. This seems to be getting too personal as it goes on now.
Chill
Posted by molleth on February 19, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Holly, I certainly have not meant to patronize you one bit (you is one smart cookie).
My apologies if you have felt that way.
Your question is great. Where I am confused is why you are asking it in relation to this post…? Have I said that I don’t care about saving babies? In talking about the environment, does that mean we don’t care about babies anymore?
Or would it be fair to offer that one of the reasons the environment is so important is so that the babies NOW DYING won’t die. Abortion is one way babies die. Environmental catastrophes are another. If global warming is real, more than just babies are going to die. Wanting to care for our environment is bigger than just wanting to be nice to the fishies in the ocean. It’s about keeping human life GOING, about keeping people healthy (think about the fact that pregnant women can’t even eat much tuna anymore or it hurts their…BABIES).
I hope this makes sense, because I totally TOTALLY agree with you that saying abortion doesn’t matter but the environment does IS WRONG.
But…and this is important…I don’t think anyone here has said that abortion doesn’t matter.
Fact is, we’re talking about the environment. The subject matter isn’t abortion at present, but that certainly doesn’t mean that we don’t care about it. (In my church, I’ve never heard a word on the environment, but I’ve heard PLENTY about abortion, and I bet that’s pretty typical for most conservative fundamentalist churches).
Commenter Paul here has brought up more than once that if global warming is legit, it’s the poor of the world who are going to eat dirt. The BABIES. The rest of us have $ and resources to fly up North and come live next to me in Alaska (lol). The rest will suffer and die.
So please please please hear this: talking about the environment is NOT talking about putting fish above people. It’s talking about PEOPLE. And that includes the most dependant of all, the widows, the orphans, the elderly, and the BABIES.
Much much much love to you,
Molly
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 9:30 pm
One thing though – I am going to call you on the flawed comparsion – becuase you have introduced it here. You say you would rather be “simple” which you equate with believing Jesus. In other words you backhand anyone who is a scientist and a Christian as not being as spiritual because they are not “simple” in their faith. That’s unfair – simple faith in Jesus doesn’t mean we can’t use the brains he gave us, or that it’s more spiritual to ignore facts around us. No-one was saying anything about you or your intellectual capacity or comprehension as far as I can see. But you’ve come in being pretty hefty and pointed and I don’t think you’ve been fair in he way you’ve done it.
Like I said – chill
It is getting too personal – it’s really about the facts and evidence.
Posted by molleth on February 19, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Spunky,
If I can be honest, I feel like you are not looking for an actual conversation, but looking for a fight. And I don’t want one. LOL… (Maybe you need to start up your blog again).
If I’m wrong, and I very well could be, my apologies. But…I still am not interested in anymore right now. Thanks.
Posted by Catez on February 19, 2007 at 9:52 pm
That last comment from me was a response to you Holly – sorry I wasn’t clear on that at the beginning of it. Your comment suggests you don’t think mommys are intellectual. I disagree. Unless you think scientists aren’t really mommys even if they do give birth. Or journalists, or doctors, or teachers, or a host of other things. And then there’s the creative artistic mommys. And then there’s those who are both. I wouldn’t expect a scientist to know all about teaching, or vice versa though.
They might, but I wouldn’t expect it as a given.
Good points Molly – and gracious. Thanks for opening up your blog. I’m trying to be done with it now – and am. I may blog on it in the near future – I’m thinking about that. It seems that despite wanting to discuss the issue it has got personal – I’m not into that.
Posted by Holly on February 20, 2007 at 5:21 am
Catez, you might not realize it – but you speak in a condescending tone. (I am back, because Molly sent a note to me.) It implies that ANYONE who does not see things your way is not very smart. Molly – with all of your logic arguments you do the same. It becomes less of an “issues” discussion, and more of a points scored type of thing. It feels like a debate competition.
No – I certainly don’t think moms aren’t smart…I was saying that it seems to me that you think that.
I’m revs wife. Just depends what If I’m signed in to my account or not.
If I seemed emotive, it is because I came back (WHY? WHY? WHY? I ask myself…)and see that my name continued in the comment thread even after I kindly exited.
Molly. Re. Abortion and the Environment. Read my question again. Don’t skim.
I said. Why have evangelical, post-evangelical and emergent Christians elevated environmental issues above the cause of saving innocent human lives? Why is abortion “out” as an issue? It was a conscious decision to do so…why was it made?
I did not say…”Why does Molly do this.”
Since we have been talking about movements of Christians either toward or against environmentalism…look at the GLOBAL scene around you and ask yourself this question.
It is part of a conscientious plan – not your plan, Molly or Catez…but part of group plan….to make environmentalism the cause of the day, and to specifically downplay abortion. They ridicule Christians who still speak about abortion.
Perhaps you are limiting this conversation to a very rigid and narrow guideline, and can’t see how the question applies. But I think it fits. The reason it fits is because you need to realize that perhaps the crisis isn’t as bad as you think – but perhaps you are just jumping into someone else’s agenda.
Another thing you should consider. The reason babies are dying and starving around the world is not because of environmentalism. (And it breaks my heart (UGH) to think of ANY child dying needlessly.) But for the most part the children who have died have not been because the US consumes too much power. It is because their government is corrupt and does not give food to their people. Do you have any idea how much humanitarian support the US sends oversees? Billions of dollars. You might want to google some reputable stats on that! Do you realize, too, that many of these corrupt governments won’t even give their people the food? It sits and rots in heaping piles, because they won’t allow the starving to have it?
That’s the reason Samaritan’s Purse and World Vision are so effective. The governments won’t let the US govt. in to help, but they will let in SP workers. Even then…when they go in…their lives are in danger because they are usually targeted by rebels. They are specifically and purposefully a-political, for the purpose of helping people.
Many of the truly starving are doing so because of warfare. Even much of the famine results from one people group raiding the towns, villages and homes of the other people. They destroy their crops, steal their animals. (Still breaks my heart, for the innocent who suffer.)
That is a SIN problem, not an ecological problem.
I do not deny that some ecological challenges exist. I do not accept that they exist on quite the catastrophic level that you insist upon. If much of this is a result of a sin problem – of one indigenous people group against another…then it seems to me we should spend efforts on helping their souls…and on humanitarian issues too….but that the environment isn’t top priority.
I am not angry. But Molly, it seems that you do not intend to bend to another’s way point of view – not even in the slightest. That is okay – it is your blog. But that means that I am superfluous to the conversation. Any point I bring up is quickly shot down. That’s not a discussion.
Really – let me leave while we all remain friends. On this one point, I agree with you.
Christians can and should be good stewards of the earth. We should not knowingly harm it. But I’ve said that before and no one heard.
In Him-
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 6:01 am
Molly you said, “If I can be honest, I feel like you are not looking for an actual conversation, but looking for a fight. ”
You might be reading a different tone into my comment Molly. I’m not looking for a fight. Not at all, but words have meaning. You said that some Christians are not being “environmentally responsible” and we can’t just sit on our “rears” while GW may threaten our earth. Those are strong statements that you seem reluctant to to define or explain. I’m just asking what you mean and what you expect from Christians in this area so we can be “evironmentally responsible.” Where is the line? Is Al Gore our role model? You? Me? Holly’s parents? Who defines being a “good steward?” It’s easy to cry “crisis” and and call us to action, but what are you expecting to see?
I’m not interested in starting up my blog again, but I enjoy engaging dialog about current topics and reading the differeing opinions of others – especially those who hold positions that vary from my own like this one. I learn more from those that are willing to defend a position that I may not hold than just reading a bunch of blogs of people I may agree with. That’s why I asked you to point out my “fallacies” and seek now an explanation of your statements. Not to fight, to learn.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 6:12 am
Catez, I’m fine that you ‘reject’ my hypothesis on what causes a “home edcucation?” I look forward to hearing what better theory you can establish to say what causes home education.
Any idea that I’m denying evidence is unfounded and unsupported. Simply because I reject what some claim as a cause doesn’t mean I reject evidence.
There are credible scientists predicting a global cooling and an ice age. And the cause emissions. It’s interesting that just taking a wait and let’s learn a little attitude rather than an act now attitude is met with such disdain. I’m old enough to see these things come and go. It reminds me of when I have a baby. Every time I’ve delivered they tell me a different way to allow my baby to sleep. Reasearch shows it’s tummy sleeping that causes SIDS. Then it was the back. Then they said put them on their side. All with substantial research to support their claims. I understand you believe the evidence, but is the world big enough who are still a little skeptical? I sure hope so.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 6:20 am
“The scientific consensus on GW from scientists in fields that directly relate to it is that it exists, it is happening, and their are identified and preventable man-made causes. And I think the objections to that are not factual, or frankly even about the science – but come from political partisanship.”
It is statements of this sort that shut down all cricial thinking Catez. We should always evaluate and keep considering the evidence as it is presented. It’s as if your saying anyone who doesn’t see it the GW way have an agenda but the pro-GW have no agenda? I’m sorry I just don’t buy it. Atleast not in America anyway.
Science depends on always being willing to question the evidence and ask difficult questions, when that right is denied with a charge of “plitics” it tells me that the evidence may not be as strong as some want us to believe. Truth is truth and it will stand up to scrutiny every time.
I’m enjoying this discussion and have said all of this in a very thoughtful but calm way. I think we ALL still have things to learn about global warming. If you are going to give the pro global warming folks the benefit of the doubt that they have no political agenda, then it would be only fair to do the same to those who still have serious concerns about the data and its interpretation.
Posted by Myfriendconnie on February 20, 2007 at 6:49 am
Hello everyone,
This discussion seems to be about finished. I have been following it with interest, and wanted to add a few facts.
Peter Doran is a real live scientist. He understands the definition of statistical data and everything! He published results of a study showing that temperatures in Antarctica have been getting slightly colder (that means opposite of warmer for those of us who have difficulty understanding science) for the last thirty years.
In response to his study, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, Michael Oppenheimer, said, “there is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica.”
There you have it! The evidence is inconclusive.
By the way, science has been wrong before.
Posted by gracie on February 20, 2007 at 7:52 am
Throughout the ages, scientists have had consensus on many things addressing their times.
There was a consensus that the sun revolved around the earth. There was a consensus that man evolved from apes. There was a consensus on eugenics. I’m not comparing any of these things to GW or saying that science should not be trusted. I believe some scientists are sincere in their research and others are corrupted. It is as Holly said…a sin issue. I also do not think that debate and consideration of each side is to fiddle while Rome burns. Every comment here is worth consideration.
connie…LOL!
Posted by Crystal on February 20, 2007 at 8:49 am
OK nothing to say here about the topic just wanted to say
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY COMMENTS!!!!!!!!! SHEESHKABOB, that’s a LOT of comments!!
Hi Molly!
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 10:29 am
Spunky
I am not shutting down critical thinking. I am getting tired of you getting at e personally an dlecturing me on how science works as if I don’t know.
You said,
“if you are giving to give the proGW folks the benefit of the doubt that they have no poltical agenda”.
Spumky rthat is really irresponsible and misrepresentative to say. It makes me sound like I think any proGW person has no agenda – whether a scientyist, a greenie or whoever. And it is not anything I’ve said.
Of course I’m quite aware that science means examining the evidence. But it also means accepting direct evidence too – something you don’t acknowledge. Look I’m sorry but you are out of line with these continual personal inferences that don’t reflect what I have said or what I mean. You are trying to paint me as your caricatture – the person who wants to panic when they should wait. I’m saying that when the evidence is clear then a process of action should begin. Not a panic button response to a lack of evidence. I can’t bother going over the analogy with you – it made it’s point well.
To myfriendconnie – actually the data doesn’t say all of Antarctica has been getting slightly colder. I read ab out that study this week. It is extremely difficult to collect data in Antartica – however I think it’s the Northwest (or thereabouts) that has in fact been getting warmer – it is easier to collect data in the part. The findings simply show that all of Antarctica doesn’t fit the global prediction model – but there is a lack of data from Antartica which make sit difficult. It doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t fit the model.
This is the problem – the media and others latch onto these sort of findings and sopin them into some “refutation” of GW when they aren’t at all. Al we know from Antarctica is that data collection is difficult and the data from most (but not all of it) seems to not fit. However the easier to collect data from the Northwest tip does fit the model.
Posted by Tiffany on February 20, 2007 at 10:54 am
One thing that keeps occuring to me as I read this conversation, is that we actually all agree on the vast majority of topics brought up both in the original post as well as in the comments (which to be fair to Molly, has gone all over the place, as well as discussing what was first brought up….the nature of blogdom I fear.) Anyway, here is the list as I can find it that we agree on.
1. Creation is God’s, He cares for it and so should we.
2. Christians should live gently and thoughtfully where ever God has placed them
3. How this gentle living plays out will look different for all of us, as God leads us, where we are placed
4. There are scientists with published work that claim there is a climate shift. They have followed the scientific process and they and their peers believe it to be pointing to a trend of warming
And most importantly…
5. Christ is Lord of all, and the message of His attoning work is more important than fixing global warming, wars, poverty, or even abortion. First things first, and Christ is always first.
See? Look at how much we all have in common! Now, granted there are somethings (and not small) that we aren’t all on the same page on. I would suspect even those who are of a GW is immenent aren’t all on the same page as each other and those of us that are of a more wait and see aren’t all on the same page. Here are the issues I see coming up again and again in the comment thread:
1. The degree of the warming trend- it is drastic and cataclismicc or is it simply a part of a different sort of cycle?
2. The causes of global warming- is it is natural function of the earth, or mostly man made, or an equal combination, or an unequal combination?
3. Which science is to be listened to and trusted- is a majority in a field enough to convince us? What amount of skeptism should we/shouldn’t we bring due to other scientific mistakes? Is it fair to distrust a scientist who disagrees with other things that are important to us or is that unfair?
4. Is this important enough to trump other issues politically? (ie- as was brought up, abortion?) Often one has to chose between a canidate that is actively promoting the environment as well as abortion acess, or one who is more ambivalent towards the environment but is pro-life. How do we weigh these matters once they become political?
So, as I see, the major points of disagreement center around the details of Global Warming. That is really rather small in comparison to all that we agree on. Certainly worth discussing, even 200 comments worth, but lets remember that as we are discussing GW we can take comfort in all that we do agree on and that we are talking to other people who love God as well as His creation.
Posted by Myfriendconnie on February 20, 2007 at 11:23 am
The Northwest tip has been getting warmer? I thought this thing was global. In fact, there are places that have recently set record *cold* temperatures and places that haven’t matched their record hot temperatures since the early 1900s. How on earth are the polar ice caps going to melt and flood massive portions of the earth at this rate?
How does today’s global warming “crisis” compare to the Medieval Warm Period? Since temperatures have only been reliably recorded starting in the mid 19th century, how can scientists say this is the warmest the earth has ever been?
Finally, I am also waiting with bated breath to hear what Molly would like me to get off my rear and do.
**All of that was typed while I was laughing hysterically.**
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 11:34 am
Catez, you said, “I am not shutting down critical thinking. I am getting tired of you getting at me personally and lecturing me on how science works as if I don’t know.
You said,
“if you are giving to give the proGW folks the benefit of the doubt that they have no poltical agenda”.
Spunky that is really irresponsible and misrepresentative to say. It makes me sound like I think any proGW person has no agenda – whether a scientyist, a greenie or whoever. And it is not anything I’ve said.
Catez, I made that statement based on your comment where you said this, “The scientific consensus on GW from scientists in fields that directly relate to it is that it exists, it is happening, and their are identified and preventable man-made causes. And I think the objections to that are not factual, or frankly even about the science – but come from political partisanship.”
I understood that to mean anyone who objects to the conclusions by the “consensus” that GW exists, and that there are indentifiable and preventable man does so from a political partisanship viewpoint. You did not say the possibility exists those that promote GW have an agenda only that those who object do so our of “political partisanship.” But made it sound like GW and its causes are a foregone conclusion and anyone who objects are doing so for politcal reasons only. If that is not true I apolgize and I look forward to hearing what you meant by that statement.
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 11:43 am
Holly,
I certainly don’t intend to speak condescendingly. However since I was not even commenting to you prior to your outburst I think that was not the issue at all. You said your name was being mentioned – who was mentioning it? – which comments was it mentioned in? Please make it clear whose comments you were referring to. You also said accusatory things had been said about you. What was said about you personally? Who accused you? Of what? I think you could take responsibility for sweeping back into a discussion and accusing people of things without the courtesy of saying who you are talking to and what they have said exactly that you take issue with.
Just laying on the accusations and then coming back with “you are condescending” is dishonest quite frankly. It’s just being personal. I had not done anything to you – I’m sorry Holly but all I pick up is that you don’t like that some-one is a scientist, and even though they haven’t done anything to you, you are going to try and smack them down for speaking from their terms of reference. I had not said anything to or about you in my comments except way further back when I said I knew it was you. After that I was not even thinking about you.
“I don’t think moms aren’t smart…I was saying that it seems to me that you think that”
Holly – I have not said any such thing. Unlike you I didn’t make any judgments based on some-ones occupation and calling – I didn’t make any emotive sympathy bid based on mischaracterising some-one’s intellect or what they do in life. The only person who has done that is you – you try to make the division based on occupation, and mommys. Not only that, by being so incredibly unnecessarily personal you also make it look like its wrong for a scientist to discuss or explain science. As if this is somehow anti-mommys. Look – I’m open to discussion but please, give me a break with this personal stuff.
Now Holly, you have a whole comment in which you respond to your own untruthful picture of what I have actually said and what I actually believe.
Like this:
“Perhaps you are limiting this conversation to a very rigid and narrow guideline, and can’t see how the question applies. But I think it fits. The reason it fits is because you need to realize that perhaps the crisis isn’t as bad as you think – but perhaps you are just jumping into someone else’s agenda.”
Actually, I think of it globally. You seem to be the one who has the narrow view, i.e. America and America. I don’t hear much from you on anything wider than the US.
And then you say – “perhaps” I am “jumping into some-one else’s agenda” – when all I’ve said is that I look at the science of it. Look Holly – I’m not going to be painted with your political agenda either – and that’s what this is. You don’t have a shred of evidence that I’ve jumped into anyone’s agenda. But you can’t seem to fathom that I might actually come to a position based on the science. Can I ask how much of the scientific literature you have read or is that not allowed because you are a mommy? If I treat you with the same positive regard I would anyone else, and ask you a question I would ask anyone else, are you going to try and turn it inmot something it isn’t, and attribute a motive to it that doesn’t exist? And by what right do you infer that I have taken on some-one’s agenda – simply because I don’t agree with yours?
“Another thing you should consider. The reason babies are dying and starving around the world is not because of environmentalism.”
Where did I say environmentalism is currently causing dying and starving babies?
But I don’t buy your abortion/environmentalism conspiracy theory. I’m pro-life, and I don’t call myself an environmentalist. But I’m not defined by your political theories. Or your mischaracterisations. For goodness sake – of course I know war kills babies. And so does the environment every year and even people who don’t agree with GW do agree that the environment causes the death of children in some regions of the world. There are severe droughts in countries not at war that cause deaths. But none of my comments were about babies to start with. I wasn’t saying GW is killing babies. You haven’t actually responded to a single thing I said in my comments Holly. Not a thing. You’ve acted like I said something completely different and you are answering. I don’t mind you having your view – but please don’t fabricate mine. Let me ask again – who was repeating your name? What was said about you specifically that was accusatory? When did anyone try to demean you on the basis of your occupation and calling? It wasn’t me that’s for sure. You made some pretty pointed and emotive comments here and haven’t owned who exactly you were slamming. I have emailed you on that but haven’t heard back from you. So you know that your comments seem directed at me even though there was no justification for them to be. I’m not into playing games here Holly. You can email me on that if you want and as I said I think it can be olive branched. But don’t come in here telling me I’m condescending when I know I’ve reached out over things that were thrown at me without cause in the first place.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tiffany, you bring up some excellent points. But keep in mind that to some responsible “family planning” and the environment are linked together. That’s why the Hewlett Foundation funded the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The Hewlett Foundation promotes responsible “family planning” and keeping abortion safe and legal. If we are concerned about the babies, the unborn must be included in that definition. But environmentalists look at “babies” a little differently than most evangelical Christian.
Don Hinrichsen of the UN Population Fund and Bryant Robey, editor of The Population Report at Johns Hopkins University, have argued:
Slowing the increase in population, especially in the face of rising per capita demand for natural resources, can take pressure off the environment and buy time to improve living standards on a sustainable basis. . . . If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and resource conservation, the world would be better able to meet the challenges of sustainable development.
That quote was taken from
Don Hinrichsen and Bryant Robey, “Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge,”, Population Reports 28, no. 3 (Fall 2000),
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m15edsum.shtml; quoted in Hinrichsen and Robey, “Population and the Environment: The Global Challenge,”
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.html
Holly’s question about why abortion has been replaced by the environment among some evangelicals is a good one to ask. The main reason it appears is because to be in with the “environmentalists” they can no longer be as vocal about being pro-life (against abortion) for fear of alienating their “new friends” in the environmentalists movement who look at “family planning” as a necessary component to control the planet.
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 12:02 pm
No Spunky, I’ve had enough. Here’s what I referred to, “The scientific consensus”. Not just anyone – the scientific consensus based on the scientific evidence. Just to make it clear that I am not saying every greenie that has a opinion is necesarily right, or that I’m obliged to agree with them or you. And at the risk of some-one playing the “how can you say that to a mommy” card – I’ll take the scientific community internationally over you any day. That’s it in a nutshell. Sorry but I’ve had enough. myfriendconnie is just mocking at this point even though it is evident she doesn’t know what she is talking about. I have no qualms saying that. If anyone wants a good starter to GW look it up on Google and read the Wikipedia defintion and explanation of what it means. It puts Antartica into context. Of course, while I take the time to explain about the correlation of the facility of data collection to prediction modelling – some person can just respond with mockery. I’ve had enough – and Spunky, you aren’t dialoguing with me anyway. If you were you’d treat me with enough respect to know I don’t need you spelling out how the scientific method works when it is my field. It’s insulting to do that. You are talking to some-one else – and the longer I let myself be goaded the more I am just being spoken over rather than to. I think I understand now – politics is more important that connecting while communicating. I’ll leave you to it.
Posted by Tiffany on February 20, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Catez-For point of clarification, the comments made by holly that you take issue with in her most recent comment were in respponse to Molly’s most recent comment, not to you specifically. Her first part of the comment was directed to you, but about two paragraphs dow she directs things to Molly.
Posted by Myfriendconnie on February 20, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Just a few facts:
The highest recorded temperatures by continent: Africa 136 degrees F in 1922, North America 134 in 1913, Asia 129 in 1942, Australia 128 in 1889, Europe 122 in 1881, South America 120 in 1905, Antarctica 59 in 1974.
The lowest recorded temperature for Antarctica was in 1983.
Interpret this data as you will.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Catez said, ” And at the risk of some-one playing the “how can you say that to a mommy” card – I’ll take the scientific community internationally over you any day. ”
I haven’t asked you to take my side. In fact, I have said that I have yet to take a side on GW, Catez. I have said let’s take a wait and see attitude from the beginning of this post. Not believing either side is right just yet. But watching how each side presents their case and the arguments they use to support their claims is how I continue to learn and may eventually come to my own conclusions. So far, I’m not convinced that GW is caused by the things that the scientists are saying they are. You are. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m just not ready to say they’re right either.
You also said, “I understand now – politics is more important that connecting while communicating.”
and
“Spunky, you aren’t dialoguing with me anyway. If you were you’d treat me with enough respect to know I don’t need you spelling out how the scientific method works when it is my field.”
Catez, I didn’t know you were a scientist nor was attempting to lecture anyone on the scientific method and disrespect you or your position. I was pointing out how I think based on questions about my postion and why I won’t “Act now” as some would like us to do. It wasn’t to lecture you, but to explain what I was thinking. That’s all.
It was you who said that those who objects are doing so for politcal reasons, that all the science points to GW, and only those engaging in “political partisanship” object because of an agenda. I’m just analyzing what is said. If that’s disresepctul what can I say? None is intended, but I am going to continue to ask questions so that I can learn and understand this issue better. If a scientist makes a statement, I’m not going to accept it simply because of their postiion. I’m going to analyze it against what other scientists are saying. That is why I haven’t made a decision about GW. The science is still uncertain. As late as ten years ago, we had scientists predicting a “global cooling.” Now it’s global warming. I’m just watching and reading and asking critcial questions before I jump to an erroneous conclusion.
I have apologized in areas where I may have misinterpretted you or others, and asked for clarification. If that’s putting “politics above connecting”, what can I say? I’m open to hearing the “other side” but it seems as though when I ask for clarification about statements “the other side” asserts that I’m “looking for a fight” (Molly said that) or putting “politics” ahead of connecting while communicating.” (Catez)
Blogging is about connecting and asking questions of those that hold certain beliefs and are bold enough to put them out there for others to read and ask hard questions about what they wrote. Equally, hard questions were asked of me. Bold statements were made about the comments I made. I didn’t take them personally but asked for more information so I could see where I was wrong, or possibly failed to communicate effectively. In cases where I was wrong I apologized, in other cases I explained more fully what I meant.
I also asked for clarification from those whose made bold statements for the case of GW. To me that is connecting and communicating.
Posted by Tiffany on February 20, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Spunky- I almost missed your comment in there!
Yeah, I’m aware of the family planning/environmental protection link in many groups minds. Rather sad to me that they get connected in that manner by people. What I’m mean to say is, it is sad to me that concern for the enviroment causes people to think that population control is the answer. did that make sense? (sorry, feeling sick and loopy).
Thankfully though, I don’t think anyone in this discussion thinks that the answer is population control. Maybe Christians can make head way with non-Christians in that regard. I hope so at least.
And I second the sentiment about Holly’s question. I don’t think that she nor anyone else was for a moment suggestion that anyone commenting on this blog wasn’t still strongly oppoed to abortion. But rather, why politically, this isn’t the issue anymore. I know Christians IRL who feel morally obligated for the candidate that is the most green, even though there is also the moral component of the stance on abortion, so this is a topic that for me personally holds a lot of interest and I’d love others perspectives on it.
Posted by molleth on February 20, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hey, all, I’d like to ask a favor as opposed to shutting down comments.
…I was hoping this conversation would turn into something productive but it seems to be rising into problem levels on a consistant scale, sort of like the atmospheric CO2 level… (LOL…couldn’t resist!)…
I’m faulting no one in particular, just saying that the comments policy on this blog is very clear on how debates should be handled…meaning, be very very careful to beat up IDEAS, if you must beat something up, NOT people.
It’s also clear that this conversation is going a billion different directions…obviously it’s a very emotional issue for a variety of reasons.
Really, this whole big bruhaha really hilarious, in that I wrote this post quickly, thinking nothing of it… just wrote it because I was thinking of the weird dinner I had with the friend who informed me why Global Warming was impossible, and I was thinking that part of following Jesus would include caring for the home that we all mutually share…seems dumb to continue to dump toxins into it when there are better ways to do things, you know?
I certainly did not intend to be inflammatory in ANY way. Please know that. I am still having a hard time understanding what about the actual post was so inflammatory!
As far as the comments, I feel like I can’t win for losing in the conversation…and I gather that many of you feel the same way. I feel like I’m trying to nail jello to the wall every time I try to talk…and then get called to task on things I didn’t even say. It’s really…weird.
Personally, I have no wish to continue participating, as I feel my time could be better spent elsewhere. Productive conversations, I am ALL about. This one…? Uh, no, but thanks!
I don’t want anyone to think I’m copping out, so please don’t be offended, but I’m just honestly NOT interested in trying this anymore. Maybe later.
Holly and I are emailing privately, clarifying things with eachother and clearing up misunderstandings, making sure we each know how much we care about our friendship, even as we disagree on issues. I would encourage others to do the same if you feel the need to do so with another commenter, as opposed to continuing an argument in this comments box.
I would ask that if you have anything more to add, please consider if it will be productive to the conversation or if your comments will just continue the war.
If you then choose to comment, please do so WITHOUT making remarks about any other commenter, OR any other person.
PLEASE NOTE: Comments that are deragatory in nature WILL BE DELETED from here on out.
Lastly, if you are still feeling SUPER impassioned about this conversation and want to continue it, please do so on your own blog. Leave us a link over here in the comments box, so that the other impassioned folks can come join you.
Okay, back to my family.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Thanks for the great discussion Molly. I already explained why I commented. Words have meaning. The fact that this post was written quickly explains a lot to me now. It seemed as though you were advocating a do or die attitude. Act now or else we may doom the planet for our children. But if GW folks are wrong, it costs us nothing. That wasn’t quite the way I saw it. And I supported my assertion with several links as to why I thought so. Further, my persistent asking of what you expected of Christians stemmed from the comments about some you have encountered being “punk drunk” in their lifestlye. It seemed appropriate since you seemed to have an idea of what you thought it meant to be “environmentally responsible” to ask what you meant. It wasn’t meant to pick a fight. I apologize if it sounded as such. But you often bring up controversial topics and engage in lively discussions about what you believe. I just figured that this was one of those times. Obviously, from your comment above this was meant to be something quite different. If I had known that in the begining I probably wouldnt’ have commented at all. But your post and earlier comments seemed to have a much more serious attitude than this last comment.
Lastly, I harbor no ill will toward you or any commenters. As I said, I learn the most from those that are passionate about their position. Your blog engages in those types of issues and I thought it was a safe to ask the “hard” questions here since that is how you blog as well. It wasn’t to fight, but to learn.
Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by chewymom on February 20, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I don’t think this will be inflammatory, but I do have a question….For those who are more in the “anti-GW camp,” for lack of a better term, what would be the harm in acting now? How would it be a bad thing to change your lifestyle so that you are causing fewer harmful emissions, creating less garbage, and living more “greenly?” I realize that some of you have said that you already live very simply, but I see others arguing that they don’t need to act. I’m just trying to get what would be the benefit to the Christian of NOT living in a more “earth friendly” way…other than personal convenience. (Which is what I see around me in my real-life Christian community–lots of people demanding their rights, and refusing to be inconvenienced for the sake of others.)
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Chewymom,
For myself, when I said when don’t need to ‘act now’ I was referring to a legislative, public policy way. I’m not saying that we as private citizens cant’ do what we can to keep our environment “clean” around us. But the standards being talked about by the UN and Congress now, and the future ideas being bandied about to stem global warming have consequences. Population control was just one of those policies that I brought up as an example.
But that is why I was persistent in asking Molly what she meant by being “environmentally responsible.” I eagerly look for ways to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. And living “responsibly” on the earth is a part of that. If someone has ideas about how I can improve and defines what they believe and how they live their life, I want to learn.
But that brings up the same question, what does it mean to live “earth friendly?” Is a failure to use birth control “earth friendly?” Depending on which environmentalist you talk to you’ll get a much different answer.
Even the VP of Goverment Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals wants to “take on population control.” (Link cited in one of my above comments.) But he’s afraid to because he dooesn’t think Americans are quite ready to hear about responsible family planning yet. When I hear a leader in the evangelical community sign on to population control, I’ll admit I get a little nervous. And the fact that he along with several other prominent evangelicals was willing to form an alliance with the Hewlett Foundation which advocates safe abortions gives me reason to wonder where the line is at being “earth friendly.”
Posted by Tiffany on February 20, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Chewymom, I’ll try to answer your question as best as I can. Hopefully others will chime in to fill in.
As expressed by Spunky, it is a concern for acting now on the global economic level that concerns many of us. I see no harm whatsoever, and ton and tons and tons of good, in living more environmentally friendly in our day to day life. Many of us in the “anti-GW camp” (I don’t know a better term either…but it isn’t quite right because I’m not “anti-GW” Oh well, it will have to do for now) feel very strongly that it is important to be good stewards of our resources, this including the planet.
It is conerns about binding ourselves to global treaties that can harm our economies and by extention many people here and in other countries that gives many of us pause.
Spunky brough up a great example (one I wasn’t aware of before) about nuclear power and how the former green peace leader was formally against its use due to the hazard it posed for the environment, but it is now realized by him and others that it would have actually been a more environmentally friendly route to go.
There are many people who definitely agree that yes there is a warming trend. That whether it is man made or not we need to be good care takers of the earth. And that we would like a more wait and see approach taken to global policy.
Did that help explain things? Or still about as clear as mud?
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Spunky,
I came back over as a matter of conscience – and say this not in response to further comments here but because I planned to. I’m sorry for my rough wording in saying I’d take the scientists over you any day. You are my sister in Christ, and you know I will stand with you on matters of truth and would defend you if I thought it necessary. However until such time as you have scientific data and analysis to presentobviously I will look to the scientific community for evidences and analysis. There is far too much data to discuss here, and I don’t feel obliged to go through a third degree in a comment box to prove anything.
If you had read my comments as we went along you wold have seen I refer to being a scientist more than once. As you said yourself, it is difficult discussing things in a comment box. I do feel you opened it up to get personal by saying I was shutting down discussion when in fact I was simply responding to arguments put forward. I think that was an unfair tactic on your part. I don’t feel obliged to continue, and will leave you to it. I have my own blog.
Tiffany – I think Holly and I are the best people to sort out what happened. False things were directed at me and I’ve initiated private email on those. If Holly wishes to respond and clarify who named her in ther comments in a way she did not like, at and what specifically they accused her of that’s her call. I most certainly did not name her or accuse her of anything, and she was not even in my mind when I was responding to others prior to her outburst. I have done nothing to her at all and was busy responding to people here. If she names me in a comment, as well as Molly, and writes it in a way that includes both then obviously I will consider her whole post and argument. Considering the whole argument is a respectful giving of attention to what some-one has said. She has the opportunity to respond here and/or privately. I have privately communicated that I believe we can olive branch. That’s all I can do for now.
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm
To clarify – of course I do not put stock in what some-one says just because of their occupation alone. i.e. just because a group of homeschooling moms come up with something doesn’t mean I say, “Oh well it must be right, it came from homeschooling moms“. Neither have I here or at any time indicated that something must be believed just because scientists said it. I sincerely hope I am not being misrepresented on that.
What I say is well the data and analysis say such and such. When I speak of consenus I mean consensus on the data – the data holds together and stands up to peer scrutiny. The peer process is a huge part of science, iand is quite rigorous. When looking at analysis one looks at the peer review also – that’s where the scientific criticisms are. I’ve always been quite critical when looking at any kind of data. That’s just a brief explanation of how some of the process works. GW is not saying the whole world is all warmig all at once. It’s an overall warming – with some small pockets that aren’t or don’t appear to be. Antarctica is a difficult place to collect consistent data. So when looking at the data one doesn’t just look at the results (this holds for any data -e.g. viral reproduction data, drug delivery data, molecular mechanisms etc) but at how the data was obtained, consistency of results over a number of experiments, previous literature etc. The Antarctica result shows that consistent data collection is very difficult – the amount of data is comparably low, and the cooler temperature recorded is not a slam dunk against GW but is either indicative of a pocket or reflective of irregular data collection and monitoring. In the region of Antarctica where data collection is regular due to suitable accessibility the data shows warming. The real finding in scientific terms is that more data on that particular region needs to be obtained. The overall warming in the globe is still happening and is not ameliorated by the Antarctica results. What happens is that people pick up on a temperature and think this refutes GW. However, GW has never been posited as every single speck of the globe warming all at once – but an overall warming which affects most of it. That’s to help explain how the science works. Obviously this isn’t the place to start putting in long lists of figues, comparative charts etc. So I’m leaving it there, for reasons already explained. Thanks
Posted by Catez on February 20, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Shoot – nearly leaving it there. Spunky – yes, I do believe that most objection to GW data is political. No disrespect to you – but when you say you compare one scientist’s findings to another the question for me is do you know how to critique the findings? It is not so simple. Do you know the anomalies of data collection, which algorithm is best for which kind of prediction model and why, which results look good but the experiments show too much variation hidden by the mean, which results fall within a range which gives both direct evidence and predictive information? When comparing scientistific papers do you know what the equipment used was and why some is technically better than others – and how those differences may affect the results? What temperature range is the right one to set as a parameter for a given region? what should the frequency of data collection be – and what should be the area? Within random collection where are the boundaries – and how do those compare with findings in another paper? If there is a paper disputing previous findings – are their methods reproducible? Were the conditions the same? If not what were the replacement variables? Do they make a difference? What is the correlation – what crosses over and what is particular? Which methodology is reported in the paper, and why? Should it be readjusted? Why or why not?
In other words – the data is where the critique is. The consensus comes from that. It is admirable to want to compare – but comparison has it’s own technical considerations.I dn’t discourage comparison – I just caution at thinking it is as simple as the media would make it look.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Catez, I understand I you could take that comment to be a personal attack, I apologize. It wasn’t what I intended and enjoyed the discussion with you tremdously. You are a formidable “foe” but a great friend. I’m glad we stand together in Christ. I didn’t take anything you said personally, but all in the spirit of a learning exercise. I have great respect for you and your beliefs even when we don’t agree on an issue. Thanks for coming back and letting me know what you’re thinking.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Catez you asked, “but when you say you compare one scientist’s findings to another the question for me is do you know how to critique the findings? It is not so simple. Do you know the anomalies of data collection, which algorithm is best for which kind of prediction model and why, which results look good but the experiments show too much variation hidden by the mean,…:
I guess what you’re asking is do I have the credentials to examine the data. Do I know everything? No. But I have quite a bit of science in my background and statistical analysis as well. (My degree was in computer science/mathematics) It may not be up to the standards to get me a job in the field, but I know enough to read data and see if the conclusions drawn make sense from the data given in many cases. So it may not be up to your level of expertise, but I’m no slouch either.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm
P.S. That last sentence was a compliment to you, not an insult.
Posted by Tiffany on February 20, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Also, if I understand things correctly GW theory also encompasses w/in it the position that the extreme weather (not just the warm) is part of the overall climate shift which is detrimental. In other words, just because we have a record low somewhere that doesn’t contridict with what some scientist are saying about GW and climate change in general.
Catez, would you say I summarize that correctly?
If you don’t mind me asking, what branch of science is your speciality? Wondering if maybe there are some of us on here that are either in/previously in/or have family member that are in similar fields upon which we can all build common ground in the discussion.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Lastly you said, “Shoot – nearly leaving it there. Spunky – yes, I do believe that most objection to GW data is political.”
I have no political agenda in this. I’m not getting my information from Rush or Al Gore but from my own personal reading. In the US there is a huge politcal component to this debate on both sides of the issue. Establishing one side as political and the other as scientific makes it appear that those who oppose GW have no scientific data to back them up. That is simply not the case. There is also ample evidence to show that many who are pro-GW have a political agenda as well. So I prefer to look at the evidence and the objections on their merit, rather than on the political agenda I think they might have. But at the same time, listen to the rhetoric from each side and listen for the things that they say and how they define them. That’s why I’m such a stickler to ask for definitions. Any formal debate begins with a definition of terminology so that all know that we’re talking about the same thing. Lest I find myself nodding that I’m “earth friendly” and find myself having assented to things I never intended but too late to retract.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm
As a matter of curiousity, I checked out Al Gore’s credentials to analyze data. From Wikipedia it says,
In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row [3] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated cum laude from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [3] After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt University and then entered its Law School. He left Vanderbilt after completing the required one-year Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for students returning to secular work to run for Congress in 1976.
Given his background, if Al Gore is credible to speak to this issue based on his education and current lifstyle than I’ve got nothing to worry about, given my background and chosen lifestyle.
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm
One last thing about the politics of global warming. A recent review of the book Heat: How To Stop the Planet From Burning by British journalist Moonbiot reveals what some environmental activists think will be necessary to “curb” climate control. I’m quoting from a review of the book, not the actual book.
Monbiot sums up his findings, “I have sought to demonstrate that the necessary reduction in carbon emissions is — if difficult — technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible.”
So even a pro-GW advocate admits that there is a political component to this issue. And as the last paragraph of the book concludes with the paragraph,
“The last paragraph of Heat is not hopeful. “(T)he campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.”(emphasis mine)
The author cites that the cost of one round trip from NY to CA gives off as much emissions as driving a Prius for a year. So no more expensive trips. (That’s why I asked Molly about whether trips to Palm Springs were “environmentally responsible” not to condemn you, but to show that some already consider that superfluous and selfsih behavior. Of course, it wasn’t. Not at all. But that’s not the way this author sees it. So it’s wondeful to talk about wanting to be “earth friendly” according to how WE want to define it. But keep in mind, WE are not being asked, but told what is necessary based on “experts” who have already decided what freedoms we should have and which we shouldn’t.
Political or scientific? I’ll let you decide.
Here’s the link to the review, I’ll leave you to decide whether to read the full book. I know I’m going to do so.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/46318/www.climatecrisis.net
Posted by Spunky on February 20, 2007 at 5:51 pm
As to the consensus of scientists. I found an interesting website recently called the Petition Project.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
This petition includes 17,100 professionals with degrees and credentials to evaluate scientific data. The website has independently verified most of the signatures as well. All have signed a petition which states,
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
I present this not to challenge your consensus, but to present to those who may still be reading that there is a credible scientists on the “other side” of global warming. And that I’m in within reason to still wait until more data is available before policy is enacted.
Posted by Holly on February 20, 2007 at 10:45 pm
My apologies for what appeared to some to be drive by commenting. I want to be clear and say that I left because I found myself getting personally involved and offended, and knew that it was time to step away, before things escalated even further.
Yes, Molly and I are doing fine. We do not agree on this issue – but are able to look beyond it and recognize that we have common ground in Christ. So from here, we grow and learn and prayerfully become better at this sort of thing!
I have e-mailed Catez in return – and am confident that we will work something out, too.
Thank you, everyone, for the conversation.
Posted by Holly on February 21, 2007 at 5:05 am
And later today I intend to open up a post where you are welcome to come and tell me how you practice stewardship in your own life. Come visit!
Posted by thereverendswife on February 21, 2007 at 6:27 am
Came back yet again – just to clarify – that my posting today has NO agenda – no hidden motives. It is purely encouragement in nature, a chance for us to learn from each other. I bear no anger, no malice…want no debate…just want us to lift each other up today.
Sometimes I am not clear, and sometimes if a person has been involved in a debate, motive might be questioned, or offenses taken. I thought overkill in explanation might be better than having anyone wonder…?
Posted by Holly on February 21, 2007 at 6:35 am
That was me, Holly up there. Must’ve been logged in…
Posted by molleth on February 21, 2007 at 10:28 am
Cool, Holly, I think that’s great, because it goes right along with this post. Gratzi.
Posted by chewymom on February 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Molly, I got your message and tried to reply to both email addys, but both bounced!
Probably doesn’t like my email address (looks spam-ish)….Anyway, thanks for the note! 
Posted by molleth on February 21, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Thanks, all, for a good conversation and modeling some serious passion alongside working it out so that no one feels stomped on.
You all rawk! lol…
(Spunky, I hear you…and I’m glad you understood where I was coming from when I put up this post, even though it obviously wasn’t clear at first–my bad, I’m sure).
Posted by Catez on February 22, 2007 at 8:59 am
I don’t have time to respond to the long comments, but I do need to apologise to Holly for responding heftily way back on the thread. I should have taken some deep breaths and communicated my points in better, i.e.conciliatory, way. So I’m sorry for not doing that. We have communicated privately, but as my comments are here publicly my apology needs to be too.
The post on stewardship is a good idea.
Posted by Holly on February 22, 2007 at 2:19 pm
And I have apologized as well to Catez. We are doing fine.
It does feel so good to work through these things.
(Hey. Do you ever see this on guy blogs? Do they ever post reconciliation notes? Just wondering if this is a girl thing.)
Posted by Catez on February 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Funny
I thought about that too. It’s mainly a girl thing I think – but I’ve seen guys do it sometimes.
Posted by Catez on February 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Spunky,
The Petition Project is flawed for a number of reasons.
1. The scientists don’t give any mention of having actually critiqued data. They simply signed a petition which was against adopting the Kyoto agreement.
2. The validity of some of the signatures, or the level of information signatories had, is very questionable. No-one actually verified whether those who signed had even analysed any GW data at all – anyone could sign. In other words, they could sign for purely political reasons.
3. The artilce provided with the petition is an unpublished and not peer-reviewed article. Ths is a HUGELY important point. If it held up to scrutiny it would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
4. The literature reviewed in the article was often quite old, and is now out of date. The major articles in Science and Nature that have been published since are obviously not covered. Since Science and Nature and the two most prestigious science journals in the world, they are also the most scrutinised. They are dificult to be published in because of their rigorous peer review, will publish articles that disporove the findings of others if the articles are sound, and the articles they publish receive the most critique of any scientific articles published. The Petition Project simply doesn’t hold up itself to that kind of standard, is selective in it’s weighting of importance to particular articles, and as I said, was already dated when it was put on the website. It is also from 2001 – hardly in keeping with current scientific findings.
5. Despite claiming to be independent the links between some signatories and Exxon have recently been revealed.
But the biggest objection to the the petiton is how non-scientific it is – both in it’s lack of peer review and it’s incredibly sloppy signature collection process.
On the other hand, real consensus is about consensus on published peer reviewed findings. It is consensus on data. Big difference. The petition project is at about the same level as the rRaelians claiming to have cloned a human being – it doesn’t provide peer reviewed information and was a publicity stunt to influence the American political process at a particular time.
it is not simply a matter of saying some scientists agree and some don’t. It is a matter of data and evidence. The petition project is not even science- it’s a pretend version. Putting a “paper” with the petition (making it look like a “paper”) that hasn’t even been published in any journal and hasn’t even been peer reviewed is as sloppy and pretentious as it gets in scientific terms.
The take home point – the petition was a poltical publicity stunt. If they had published articles I’d be willing to look at those.