Skip to main content
[Disclaimer: The following political views are mine; you may choose or not to agree with them. No claim will be made that such views represent the majority of evangelical American Christians, or that they have any standing as 'THE evangelical position' on any issue. Thus, you in the media can now refrain from portraying us as a monolithic block of unthinking Bushbots or GOP lackeys, if we ever were. Thank you.]

I must confess: I am a global-warming denier. That's really not cool to say. (Or maybe it is, who knows?) And it's not because A) I hate the earth (I most certainly love it) or B) I'm greedy (I'd like to think not, anyway) and I should say that C) to the best of my knowledge, I have not received funds from any oil/other energy company ever. Nor is my position on this issue conditioned by any, shall we say, sudden eschatological views (like, "Jesus is coming tomorrow, so who cares?" etc). This earth, once fully repaired, will be our home. If you cut down a tree--I fully agree with the hippies here--put it back. Adam was a gardener; it's a fair point. Now that the qualifying is out of the way, let me proceed.
Where is this massive scientific consensus that global warming is real? Am I the only one who notices that our national conversation just assumes this to be true? Granted, I don't have the time to investigate climatology on my own, and neither do you; we've got to trust somebody. And for all I know, it's there, they're right, and we have work to do. But I'm a little uncomfortable automatically trusting even a vast majority of scientists (or other 'experts') about anything. Don't most scientific advances seem to occur when some lone wolf, as it were, passionately fights for a crazy-wacko idea all alone, intuitively sensing that the paradigm is in error? (Paging Polanyi!) Isn't this 'consensus' a little scary in that sense?
What got me thinking about this was a rather glib story in Newsweek about 'the global-warming denial machine.' I've heard of Fred Singer (a noted skeptic) and others. We might want to know (as the article says) who funds their research, what their slant is on this. By all means. But let's not simply dismiss anyone. Have we really done this for the other side? I might point out, for example, that liberal Democrats have a natural hostility toward capitalism and industry unrelated to this issue. Is it at least possible that a perceived calamity could lead to the kind of economic regulation (and forced economic equality) that some Democrats have always desired, but frankly, have been unable to achieve with a willing populace? If we point out these possibilities for skeptics, we must do the same for proponents. Not to dismiss, necessarily, but let us be aware. Is the Kyoto Protocol the best way to deal with our problems on this issue? Why? What do the signatories/proponents have to gain besides a better environment? Why does the treaty ignore the developing world's CO2 contribution to focus on the US predominately? If America weren't the lone superpower, would this treaty have been proposed?
"Words of a true denier," you sniff, and maybe so. But we should be openly discussing all these things, on every side. Let's lay all the cards on the table. Al Gore, and Fred Singer, and James Hansen, and Bjorn Lomborg, and your bio teacher from high school should sit down and talk these things out. It'll get nasty maybe; Al will get accused of being a data-falsifying commie, someone will point out for the millionth time that Lomborg is a statistician, not a climatologist, and he'll give that skeptical work not one second of attention. Fine; we'll sling all the slanderous brickbats we can think of. But I figure if we listen long enough, instead of running back to our "camps," maybe we'll catch something we all like. Is there an environmentalist out there who's ever said, "You know, John Stossel has a point; these 'advocacy' groups really harm the case." Or, hey Republicans: I'm not really against alternate fuels. Even if the whole thing's exaggerrated, is anybody against zero-emission vehicles, or planting trees? BTW, you don't have to be a 'moderate' or a 'maverick' to build bridges. Stinkin' find a friend you routinely disagree with, but one you can't help but respect. That'll be how we get out of this (pardon the pun) poisonous atmosphere we're in, man. Kenny Loggins might be the biggest (left-wing) hippie ever, but you can't tell me you didn't like "Conviction of the Heart." And maybe that song funded some dodgy, alarmist climate science. But I'll bet they planted some trees, too. Praise the Lord!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un