Global Warming is Crap

RougeCleric’s purpose is not to pursue political agendas as an end in themselves. Antagonists in the political arena are already separated by profound and insoluble philosophical differences, and are thus unable to come to any common understanding or conclusions. The inevitable result of political dialogue is thus enmity and division. We would do well to avoid such activities. It is our purpose, however, to comment on political issues, amongst others, if in doing so we can show how regenerate thinking can solve those philosophical problems and thereby achieve new insight and rapprochement. Who has something to add to the caldron of social debate if not Christians? Because of their reconstituted minds, Christians should be the first to examine the divisive issues of our time, and show where sinful Man has lost his way and needs to repent even of the way he thinks.

This avoidance of logical thought is to the eternal discredit of the Church. Logic can, and should, play a huge role in the conversion of the world to the Christian Gospel. When does the sinner decide to change his wicked ways, if not when he logically concludes that he must? The drunk decides to stop drinking, because worship of the bottle has destroyed his life. The thief decides to stop stealing because he’s in jail and deprived of his freedom. Is that not why they’re called penitentiaries? The homosexual or heterosexual philanderer decides to leave his life of sin because his past choices have debased one of God’s greatest gifts. Are not these examples, one and all, of people engaging in logical, ordered, analysis of cause and effect as encountered in God’s creation? When we allow subjectivity and “faith” to enter into the debate, we lose hold of our greatest tool, and that is the ability to think straight.

Nowhere is logical, objective thinking more rare than in the current debate, highly politicized by an election year, about global warming. Wherever you turn, be it in specialty magazines about cars, climbing, the outdoors, or in the pontifications from the Democratic nominees in debate, there’s one issue that is swallowed hook, line and sinker by everybody, and that is that the world is warming up due to anthropogenic (man made) carbon dioxide. Is this true? Who has studied the issues? Upon what are their alarming predictions based?

If you do any research at all into the issue, you’ll find some interesting facts that will cause you to reconsider your position. Here are some examples:

• Humans are responsible for 2% to 5% of all carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide comprises from 3% to 4% of all greenhouse gases by volume, the largest of which is water vapor from the oceans. Thus, humans are responsible for .2% of all greenhouse gases, or less.

• Global temperatures have risen about .6 of a degree Centigrade during the past century, with much of the gain coming BEFORE 1940, BEFORE the bulk of fossil fuels were burned. 80% of the fossil fuels burned in the 20th century were used since WWII, a period which until 1976 was a COOLING trend. Furthermore, high altitude temperature readings for the 20th century show no consistent trend in terms of temperature change.

• The current rise in global temperature is observable only in contrast to the “Little Ice Age” which concluded at the end of the 19th century. Claims of global warming do not consider paleoclimatological data which suggest that there have been many periods of warmer and cooler weather, all of which occurred without the benefit of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

• Fossil, sedimentary and ice gas data suggest that past temperature fluctuations are indeed accompanied by changes in carbon dioxide levels, but that the changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years. Thus, carbon dioxide production is dependent upon temperature, not the other way around.

• The earth receives about 342 watts of solar energy per square meter. This should be compared to the amount of energy carbon dioxide is expected to add, which is only 1.5 watts per square meter. This latter figure should be contrasted with the amount of solar energy a cloud can absorb or reflect, which is calculated to be about 78 watts per square meter. Thus, a cloud can have 52 times the influence of carbon dioxide in terms of affecting our global temperature.

• The best correlation between global temperature and any other natural phenomena is found with solar activity in the form of sun spots. Although the exact linkage is ill-understood, it appears as though cosmic rays affect the upper atmosphere of the Earth, inhibiting the condensation of lower level clouds and allowing more solar radiation to strike the Earth and increasing surface temperatures.

• Many of the world’s most prominent scientists involved in paleoclimatological and atmospheric studies have abandoned the global warming ship.

• The computer simulations that predict a sudden rise in global temperatures are mere approximations of the exceedingly complex system that is our biosphere, and they have consistently shown themselves to be subject to the prejudices of their authors. Water vapor feedback loops programmed at exponential gain produce temperature rises, no matter what data are entered into the equation. The predictions are embedded in the algorithms, not the observed data.

The validity of the research cited here is, of course, open to question, but a definite pattern emerges when the data are consulted. Those who have looked at the facts are anything but convinced that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the civilization killer as it’s portrayed in the popular press. The question for Roguecleric, though, remains: why would people be so eager to adopt this highly suspect interpretation of our climatological predicament and tout it as received truth?The answer to this question returns, of necessity, to philosophy. Remember what the Bible says about Man. We are not rational, but irrational, creatures. Rational behavior would be this: study the facts, draw a conclusion, and then modify your behavior to align yourself with the facts. What we do, of course, is the opposite. We decide what we want to do, then we look for “facts” that justify our prior decision, and go with them instead. Philosophy is the study of how we think or fail to think, and the whole global warming debate is a classic example of the latter. There are at least three reasons why the liberal political machine, the environmental movement and the media are so attracted to the global warming bandwagon.

1. • First of all, it lets them blame others for their problems; an important psychological necessity for the idle. Remember what Adam said when confronted with his sin. “It’s the fault of the woman you gave me.” Thus it was the woman’s fault, and God’s fault for giving her to Adam, but it was not Adam’s fault. Blame shifting was therefore the first sign of human sin. The global warming people, most of whom do nothing to contribute to the economic pie, are jealous of those who actually work to make the world a better place. They don’t grow crops, they don’t mine resources, they don’t manufacture or distribute anything; they just consume. So what do they do with their neurosis? They blame those who make their lifestyle possible for hurting the environment. It’s simply guilt talking.

1. • Secondly, it turns the tables on Man’s role in creation. According to the Scriptures, Man has been put in charge of the garden to make it more orderly and beautiful. Plants, animals, all are here to be used to our advantage. This is not to say that we’re to misuse Creation, as it does not belong to us. We are stewards of that which ultimately belongs to somebody else, and we will be held accountable for the use, or misuse, of what’s entrusted to us. We are not, however, slaves to that which we are to superintend. The world is not, in the lamentable words of Eucharistic Prayer C in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, a “fragile earth, or island home.” It’s pretty damn robust, and has a God-given capacity to rejuvenate itself after profound abuse from humans. We are not to feel guilty about being at the top of the pyramid in the animal kingdom, the food chain, or any other aspect of Creation.

1. • Thirdly, the global warming mantra distracts us from the real issues in the human experience, notably the increase in sexual sins and the resultant slaughter of unprotected, unborn children. By acting put out over global warming, the would-be moralists are able to issue sanctimonious denunciations of the rest of us, while doing nothing of substance to help the human condition. What’s more important, sixth tenth’s of a degree in temperature, of the fact that more than half the babies being born are not born of married parents? At best these people are like Diogenes, who trundled his clay pot around the streets of Athens in an energetic display of action with no clear goal in mind. At worst, they are masking their own moral shortcomings by pointing their fingers at others.

So what are we to do? First of all, ask the next proponent of global warming you meet for the source of his “facts.” Which study is he referring to? What paleoclimatological data support his conclusions? Sea shell isotopes, ice gases from Greenland, soil sediments from Canada? Whose model are they referring to? The ones that make the same prediction, no matter what data are entered into them? Let’s get real. I’m the son of the world’s foremost expert on computer simulation, and I know how these models of “soft” systems are done. They tell you more about the philosophy of the modeler than they do about the system under consideration. Secondly, you must make sure your elected leaders are supported when they refuse to be drawn into the global warming worldview. God bless George Bush. Forget Kyoto. We’re going to run out of fossil fuels soon enough, and we’ll have a whole new set of problems when that happens. Finally, ask those who espouse this worldview how they got where they are currently standing. Did they ride a bicycle? Did they walk? Do they do anything that uses energy? Do they have a car? Do they go to concerts to support the environment? Why are they entitled to use energy, and we aren’t? Don’t they know that their beloved poor and disenfranchised will be the FIRST to suffer if the world economy is disrupted by attempts to shut it down?

We are enjoined by Scripture to love God with our whole selves, body, spirit, and MIND. If you can’t think clearly about the created order, what makes you think you can come to any accurate and sane conclusions about more weighty matters? Let’s practice on the little stuff, like science, then we can move on to the big stuff, like the stewardship of a beautiful creation and the discovering the purpose of Man therein.