A COOL RESPONSE TO A HOT TOPIC

The New York Times is once again fanning the flames of global catastrophe, however, a recent article by Thomas Sieger Derr in the November 04 issue of First Things magazine does an excellent job of fisking the hype about the "proven" science of global warming. Following are several excerpt:

The consensus holds that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming and that human activity is the main culprit. The past century, we are told, has been the hottest on record, with temperatures steadily rising during the last decades. Since human population and industrial activity have risen at the same time, it stands to reason that human activity is, one way or another, the cause of this observed warming. Anything wrong with this reasoning?

The article continues by pointing out the fallicies in thinking and reporting that have driven the global warming warning to page one headlines.

In sum, what we learn from multiple sources is that the earth (and not just Europe) was warmer in the tenth century than it is now, that it cooled dramatically in the middle of our second millennium (this has been called the "little ice age"), and then began warming again. Temperatures were higher in medieval times (from about 800 to 1300) than they are now, and the twentieth century represented a recovery from the little ice age to something like normal. The false perception that the recent warming trend is out of the ordinary is heightened by its being measured from an extraordinarily cold starting point, without taking into account the earlier balmy medieval period, sometimes called the Medieval Climate Optimum. Data such as fossilized sea shells indicate that similar natural climate swings occurred in prehistoric times, well before the appearance of the human race.

So much for the anthropogenic model of climactic change that is the keystone of the global warming religion. Yes, I said religion. A religious belief is based on faith and the high priest of global warming are pushing a brand of religion that requires you to ignore and suspend truth in favor of their twisted perspective on the future.

What, then, is the cause of the current warming trend? As everyone has heard, the emission of so-called "greenhouse gasses," mostly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, is supposed to be the major culprit in global warming. This is the anthropogenic hypothesis, according to which humans have caused the trouble. But such emissions correlate with human numbers and industrial development, so they could not have been the cause of warming centuries ago, nor of the nineteenth-century rewarming trend which began with a much smaller human population and before the industrial revolution. Nor is there a very good correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and past climate changes. Thus, to many scientists, the evidence that greenhouse gasses produced by humans are causing any significant warming is sketchy.

No one denies that the earth's surface temperatures have and do continue to fluctuate significantly over time. The BIG QUESTION is whether man's presence on earth is a curse or a blessing. The global warming crowd would have you believe that man is a virtual cancer on the planet, and the climactic, societal, economic, and enviromental problems all result from the misuse and mismanagement of the earth's fragile and limited resources. That is the story dominating the "sciences" of our public education system from kindergarten to grad school.

This brings us to the second part of the answer, which concerns the political and economic consequences of the policy argument. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN body and reflects UN politics, which are consistently favorable to developing countries, the majority of its members. Those politics are very supportive of the Kyoto treaty, which not only exempts the developing countries from emissions standards but also requires compensatory treatment from the wealthier nations for any economic restraints that new climate management policies may impose on these developing countries. Were Kyoto to be implemented as written, the developing countries would gain lots of money and free technology. One need not be a cynic to grasp that a UN body will do obeisance to these political realities wherever possible.

In 1997 the US Senate passed a bipartisan resolution, the Byrd-Hagel anti-Kyoto resolution, by 95-0 (a fact rarely recalled by those who claim that America’s refusal to sign on to the treaty was the result of the Bush administration’s thralldom to corporate interests).

Finally, there is a fourth cause: a somewhat murky antipathy to modern technological civilization as the destroyer of a purer, cleaner, more "natural" life, a life where virtue dwelt before the great degeneration set in. The global warming campaign is the leading edge of an environmentalism which goes far beyond mere pollution control and indicts the global economy for its machines, its agribusiness, its massive movements of goods, and above all its growing population. Picking apart this argument to show the weakness of its pieces does not go to the heart of the fear and loathing that motivate it. The revulsion shows in the prescriptions advanced by the global warming alarmists: roll back emissions to earlier levels; reduce production and consumption of goods; lower birth rates. Our material ease and the freedoms it has spawned are dangerous illusions, bargains with the devil, and now comes the reckoning. A major apocalypse looms, either to destroy or, paradoxically, to save us—if we come to our senses in the nick of time.

In reality, the earth was created by God for mankind to steward and develop. Buckminster Fuller's zero sum analogy of spaceship earth is false. The earth is a positive sum growth system in which resources and wealth can be created and expanded. Oil is the classic example. Two centuries ago natural oil deposits were considered valueless. It wasn't until humans figured out that oil is a cornicopia of uses from plastics to fuels. Suddenly oil became a highly valuable resource. Where did oil's value come from? From the mind of man. Therefore, is oil the most valuable resource on the earth? No. The mind of man is because man is uniquely created in the image of the Creator. And the Creator's purpose or design for man was to lovingly and wisely care for all of creation.

However, the global warming evangelists preach a far different gospel. They see man as a curse rather than a blessing to the earth and to be managed and limited to fit their warped worldview of death. Man, particularly God-fearing man, is the greatest threat to the world. Far greater than a handful of terrorist who are justified in their violence as a reaction to their oppression. That is the worldview that dominates much of the leadership of the Democrat Party, particularly the Kerry-Edwards ticket. They must be defeated on Tuesday.