Posted on March 12, 2007 - by Calvin L. Smith
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Remember the doom and gloom eco-merchants of the early 1980s who claimed global warming would lead to the melting of the polar caps and the flooding of London by 2010? As a teenager I recall how this was big news all of a sudden. The Green Party sprang onto the national political stage, everyone was talking about green issues, and governments began to levy green taxes (remember the Tory `environmental’ fuel tax escalator?).
My problem with it all is that it never happened. London did not flood (in fact, London waters have barely risen since then). In short, they got it wrong. But by then Pandora’s box was well and truly open and a monster had been created, seized upon by the left as a new moral crusade in the wake of the collapse of their darling which was the East Bloc. Revised predictions have been churned out since, though I notice these apocalyptic scenarios are now purported to take place far into the future. Clearly, the scientists don’t want a repeat of the London flooding fiasco, where we can look back and say they got it wrong. Better to set a date when most of us will be dead by then, and then create the panic here and now.
You can tell I have grave problems with the global warming issue, especially man-induced global warming, and I believe we have been hoodwinked. Add to this the politicisation of the IPCC, how scholars word their research findings to secure funding, the capture of the environmental agenda by the left, the fact that temperatures now are lower than in the medieval ages (or even earlier this century!), and finally how the green movement has become a religion that tolerates no dissent. Even to question global warming labels one a heretic or a fool, and there is simply no room for debate, even though some leading scientists are not convinced we can be sure what is going on. Oh, and I can’t stand the way cynical governments see it is yet another way to raid our pockets.
Imagine my unparalleled joy, then, when Channel 4 aired its hugely controversial one-and-a-half hour documentary last week entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle. What an absolute eye opener, full of top climatologists and scientists who have massive problems with the current politicised science. It surely says something that various leftist and green groups were lobbying people to complain about the programme even before it had been aired! It demonstrates how their motives are ideological rather than practical and scientific. Once again we see how dissent is pounced upon and simply not tolerated. What kind of movement won’t even allow a discussion of the issue? What do they have to fear? Perhaps the truth emerging?
And this is surely the problem from a Christian perspective. Too many Christians are allowing the political agenda to be dictated by worldly ideologues and the spirit of the age, rather than getting together to work out a Christian response from a biblical and theological perspective. Yes indeed, from the early chapters of Genesis we learn that stewardship of the world God has given us is a Christian responsibility. But our theological and biblical response should be based on facts, not the present Zeitgeist’s new morality.
Besides, apart from global warming there are other environmental issues Christians should be dealing with now. For example, good stewardship of our personal finances should mean we don’t waste unnecessarily our resources in today’s (ironic) “buy today throw away tomorrow” culture. So energy-saving lightbulbs, insulation, looking after and maintaining our property and goods, and so on, are all good things.
Please, by all means send your comments. There is nothing I would love more than a good, open Christian debate on this issue. But before you do, watch The Great Climate Change Swindle (why not compare it with Al Gore’s piece, who by the way has lost all credibility since it was learned his family home produces more CO2 emissions than very many average American homes put together). Also read Melanie Phillips’ take on the programme.
On this day when all three major political parties in the UK are falling over themselves to prove they are the greenest (more taxes you see, disguised as morality), I have to admit I have grave misgivings about aspects of the green movement and human-induced climate change. It smacks more of worship of creation rather than the Creator. I don’t mind being proved wrong, and welcome an open, objective, and non-politicised scientific debate. But as things stand at the moment I cannot help but wonder if it is all a big con. This child is not scared to say “The Emperor has no clothes”.
© Calvin L. Smith 2007.
12 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Find us on Facebook
Visit My Website
March 13, 2007
Permalink
I think environmental issues can sometimes suffer from what all things suffer from when dealing with theory. You start with an initial theory (A) and from there build theories B, C D etc. By the time you reach theory Z you find yourself relying on a lot of unproven theories, which may be right, but equally may be wrong.
Whilst I believe many environmental issues are very largely theoretical and may not be wholly accurate and also that governments see these sorts of issues as a chance to tax people yet again, I do believe there are some basics that we should all be able to agree on.
Let me state that I’m not a scientist but have reached the following conclusions using old fashioned commonsense:
1) If we cut down more trees than we plant, we will run out of trees.
What effect this will have on the polar caps and the ozone layer is beyond me … but I think having no trees is generally considered a bad thing. If my layman’s science is correct, trees ‘breathe in’ carbon dioxide and ‘breathe out’ oxygen. This is good.
2) If we use finite resources (or at least resources that can’t be replenished quickly enough) such as coal and oil, at some point we will run out.
Something finite can never be seen as a long term solution to anything.
3) If we dump stuff (e.g. household and nuclear waste) in the ground, at some point we will run out of land.
Now, I am undecided about the use of nuclear power, but it cannot be denied that it produces waste that needs to go somewhere. Likewise, our own household rubbish doesn’t just vanish (at least, not all of it does).
I don’t think I’ve made any groundbreaking points here and I do believe they are valid. So where does this leave us?
Besides Adam being given the task of steward, I believe that what we would call “General Revelation” is also an issue to take into a consideration. How can the trees and the hills and the mountains and the fields and the animals all cry out to the unbeliever that there is a creator if none of these things can be seen? If a layer of smog covers everything, if there are no trees, if we live knee deep in rubbish, can we honestly say, ‘look at the beauty our creator has made’?
Therefore, regarding the three points above I believe we as Christians should at least give consideration to the following:
1) Recycle paper and cardboard. Reduce the amount of trees required for the creation of paper. Consider planting or supporting the planting of more trees.
2) Consider how we can firstly use less energy and also consider the use of renewable energy sources. Currently this is expensive, but if prices come down (however it may happen, e.g. tax breaks), consider supporting renewable efforts.
3) Don’t really have a solution to this one, other than try and create less rubbish (which takes us back to point 1 and recycling).
Visit My Website
March 13, 2007
Permalink
How refreshing to hear a thoughtful opinion on the issue bereft of leftist ranting aimed at shoring up a particular ideological position no matter what. I especially liked the comment on General Revelation and the practical comments at the end. This is what Christians should be doing: debating and formulating a uniquely Christian view which is biblically-based, exegetically sound, thoughtful, and has a practical outworking. Thanks. Let’s hope others join the debate.
Visit My Website
March 13, 2007
Permalink
Addendum. Check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm
This is what aggravates me about this country. Entrepreneurial, forward thinking, original, on the cutting edge… yet also obsessed with what other countries think about us, extreme in its insecurity, original to the extreme of being quirky, and always ready to dash headlong into the latest fad without thinking through the consequences. No other country does it with such gusto (well, not since Blair came to power, anyway… cool Britannia and all that).
Why are we so insecure that we have to prove we are the trend-setters (an historical trait)? Maybe it is something about the national psyche. (You know what they say, don’t you? “An Englishman will treat you as his equal as long as you treat him as your superior”). Not even Germany is this extreme (they just refused an EU attempt to introduce speed limits in their motorways aimed at saving fuel).
But anyway, we accept that all this is how the world thinks. So be it. What concerns me more is how Christians in this country jump on the bandwagon without thinking it through. So, for example, we insist on tough climate change options (so many churches do today), yet ignore how this affects real people in real situations in Third World countries (see Channel 4′s recent documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle). As such, biblical views on social justice are ditched. That is why we need a mature Christian debate on this issue.
Visit My Website
March 13, 2007
Permalink
Many years ago I came across a ‘personal image’ consultant working for a company called ‘Colour Me Beautiful’. The consultant informed me what colour clothes would suit me, and perhaps more importantly, what colour clothes I should avoid. I mention this as I have an almost pathological aversion to wearing anything green. Essentially it does not suit me. I suspect my views on environmental issues may also be coloured by a similar aversion. In short I just don’t buy many of the arguments.
Of the many issues and problems in contemporary British society that virtually scream at our political masters on a daily basis, it is quite staggering that ‘global warming’ commands such a priority.
For many years now, climate change has been increasingly viewed as THE large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is not environmental, but self-created, self inflicted political lunacy. Consider – Official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, indicate that from 1998 to 2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease). This eight-year period of static temperature even coincides with both the huge increase in ‘hot air’ created by our ‘New Labour’ government and also the great British Middle Class’s shamefully immoral 4×4 inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Of course a global warming conformist would be horrified that the above comparisons and conclusions are proposed for such a short time span as 8 years. Ironically however, that same global warming conformist will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Our global warming conformist will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists.
In fact scientists have long appreciated (ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) that the climate changes naturally almost continuously, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.
In spite of the facts however, debate is stifled and the ‘mad mantra’ dominates. Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s leading meteorologists, writing in the Daily Mail (8/3/07) states ‘Global Warming is the religion of our age: self righteous, intolerant of dissent and based on superstition.’ A more apt description is surely impossible to write.
Visit My Website
March 15, 2007
Permalink
hi calvin,
just wondering if youve heard of or read ‘the politically incorrect guide to science’ by tom bethall?
you can read about it here on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Science/dp/089526031X
it might be up your street, he talks about the global warming hoax, the oil hoax, the darwinism hoax etc.
Visit My Website
March 15, 2007
Permalink
Thanks for that. Concerning politicised science (as discussed on the site you mention) Melanie Philips critiques a piece by a scientist who openly rejects empiricism and argues for what is referred to as `post-normal science’. Read her views here: http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469
Visit My Website
March 15, 2007
Permalink
ive heard some of phillips’ ‘londonistan’ talks on mp3, shes very much been influenced by bat ye’or and her theory of ‘eurabia’ – do you know much about this whole ‘islamization of europe’ thing (thats a whole another post i expect)? ill read the article you link later tonight, looks interesting..
Visit My Website
March 15, 2007
Permalink
sorry, yeah the link for londonistan talk by her is:
http://multimedia.heritage.org/mp3/Lehrman-051006.mp3
Visit My Website
March 15, 2007
Permalink
I discuss political Islam in Europe in the latest edition of the Evangelical Review of Society and Politics (www.evangelicalreview.com). I think the full text is available there.
Visit My Website
March 16, 2007
Permalink
I must say I find this whole concept of “post-normal” science very troubling. Although I haven’t yet had time to study it properly, a quick search on Google Scholar turns up loads of articles about it. The basic premise seems to be that in difficult circumstances where decisions must be made imminently, sufficient knowledge to scientifically evaluate the situation may be not be available, thus we must instead rely on experience and consensus to guide decisions.
This approach is not simply deemed relevant to the hypothesis of man-made Global Warming (though this is a big one), but a wide range of politically sensitive issues are also discussed [1], such as GM foods (and amusingly the Millennium bug – note the date of the article). Nevertheless, I can see that there are problems – politicians, in general, only last a few years and so need quick solutions to problems (perceived or otherwise) – solutions that may not be immediately available. However, science is constantly subject to refactoring and reevaluation – we cannot simply make a decision because one is needed imminently.
However, the article says that:
“The previous belief that scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information for decision-makers is now being increasingly recognised as simplistic and immature. It is appreciated that the commitments of scientific advisors can legitimately influence their judgement on issues where there are deep and unresolvable uncertainties. When they enter a negotiation, they cannot leave their values at the door. Their integrity lies not in their ‘disin- terestedness’, but in their honourable behaviour as stakeholders.”
So we basically rely on our scientists being good people. Science becomes politicised, consensus becomes “the truth”. This can surely not be right. As we saw with the Millennium bug, people tend to jump on band-wagons – sadly, including well meaning Christians. Obviously that didn’t have too many negative (and indeed many positive) effects though. However, the higher the stakes, the more serious the effects may be (e.g. stifling African growth).
(The author reserves the right to be wrong
)
[1] – Ravetz, Jerome (1999) ‘What is Post-Normal Science?’, Futures 31: 647-653.
Visit My Website
March 16, 2007
Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
just to say google video had their version of the global warming swindle taken down after about a day (maybe the head of google got a death threat or something), but its still up on youtube (above link)..
Visit My Website
March 21, 2007
Permalink
I can’t help but feel that we’ve been “hood winked” into this debate by the politicians, instead of being aware of what God’s word says. This thought may be borne out by the fact this is the twelfth entry for this particular blog, and (if I’m not mistaken) the highest number of comments for any one topic. There is a massive amount of evidence corroborating global warming. There is an enormous amount of evidence suggesting that global warming is not occuring! So what can one do? Exegetical (and subsequent hermeneutical) studies will illustrate how Yahweh wants us to care for His world. But don’t jump on the band wagon of global warming (just because this is politically motivated subject) at the expense of learning what the Lord wants us to do in other areas of life. Of course, debate the subject, but do so (as Calvin suggests) in a non-politicised, scientific arena. Oh, and one last point: be aware that there are lies, damn lies and then statistics!