Discussion for next Monday
My thoughts for topic for discussion:
How do the ideals and practice of Christianity interact with today's ecological movement?
[NB: I'm somewhat assuming people agree there is a genuine ecological crisis either going on or at least pending; I wouldn't imagine we'd have time to debate that too. Correct me if I'm wrong.]
How do the ideals and practice of Christianity interact with today's ecological movement?
- What are our obligations generally regarding the treatment of nature, within a Christian framework?
- Do the two ideologies conflict in any ways? (e.g. the over-population problem: how much human happiness can the earth support? Are the efforts of well-meaning Christians trying to feed the poor actually making things worse, or not? Does the earth exist for the use of humanity, or not? ...)
- If there is a conflict, which side should we come down on?
- What are we all going to do about it?
[NB: I'm somewhat assuming people agree there is a genuine ecological crisis either going on or at least pending; I wouldn't imagine we'd have time to debate that too. Correct me if I'm wrong.]
posted by Kat | 5/15/2007 02:31:00 pm
13 Comments:
Wow, that is some deep thinking there (and some quite awesome question-formulating too).
I suspect questions 1 and 4 will work the best, and provoke the most useful discussion (and - gasp - research even).
Questions 2 and 3 are almost one question (or two parts to one question) and will probably get discussed anyway. As there's only really a couple of stances, (and we're pretty well aware of where everyone in heresy stands), it has the potential to descend into silly finger pointing and "why my view is right" type arguments.
Also, lately we haven't been having 'debates' so much as 'one point of view that everyone seems to agree with' discussions, which are a little boring. I think 2 and 3 may just keep that boringness alive.
Bring on the controversy and diversity of questions 1 and 4, I say! And by controversy I may not mean what you think *looks mysterious* :P
Wow, that was a long comment. *cough* back to er... study :D
you're wrong, but just too ignorant and naive to understand
Christina: I understood 2 as: Is it 'people vs. earth'? And 3 (call it 2b): If so whose side should we be on.
Two pretty fundamental questions I would think, with answers which aren't that obvious to me.
heart: go on, enlighten us.
Throughout history scientists have stood firm in their search for the truth. Many, like Galileo, were persecuted for doing so. But their courage and determination to uncover facts and ignore the political interests of the day has played a key role in the march of human progress.
The British philosopher Thomas Huxley describes the single-minded quest for answers that is at the heart of the scientific method stating:
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable one”.
Yet as you read this column, blind faith and the pursuit of populism have become dominant forces in the environmental debate to the point where politicians from all sides of our Parliament have embraced the junk science that is brainwashing people into thinking that the end of the world is upon us - that is, if we do not trust their judgement.
The late – and very sadly missed – climatologist Prof Augie Auer, in a column written for the NZ Centre for Political Research earlier this year expressed it in this way:
“What a wonderfully powerful human trait is the imagination. No other form of animal life can think creatively as we humans…to dream up scenarios of passion…love, joy, hatred, anticipation. But distort our imaginative powers with a bit of fear and guilt instilled by mischievous science…and presto, you have the makings of the catastrophic global warming [ooops, I’m sorry], I mean, climate change hysteria”.
He then explained that the United Nations Climate Change Panel – a political, not scientific body - has exacerbated what amounts to a massive fraud by its reckless use of computer modelling which it then presents as fact:
“Every one of the outcomes predicated on present and continued burning of fossil fuels by mankind are projections generated by computer simulations of future climatic patterns. They are not reality, not certainty, rather a kind of computer imagination. And even with all the mathematical manipulations, the climate models are only as good as the knowledge that is imputed to them. And as much as we would like to think that our knowledge of all atmospheric processes is substantial, the fact is it’s grossly lacking in both scope and thoroughness especially when it comes to looking decades into the future. This means that high levels of accuracy and certainty just can’t be achieved. Sometimes computer models can’t predict our local weather with useful certainty just 48 hours in advance”.
Augie knew that “because of the dominance of a simple, Earth–unique gas, water vapour, we could say that mankind could not alter our climate if we wanted to!” He firmly believed that “since carbon dioxide is not the problem, there is no need for any mandatory reduction of planetary CO2 or punitive taxations to prevent its use”. And he concluded: “Scientists have an ethical responsibility to be truthful in their research, to avoid being arrogant, intimating & intolerant. This is not intended as a criticism of all those involved in climate research, but it is directed in some regard to politicians & policymakers who, in interpreting the ‘science’, tell us ‘You have a problem, we can solve it & no other opinion matters’”. (to read Augie’s article, click here>>>)
Sadly, at the time of his death, the truth about the great global climate change swindle – to use the title of the excellent UK Channel4 documentary (click to view>>>) - had still not been exposed.
The problem we face as a nation is that our leadership has embraced radical environmentalism with religious faith. Under the guise of an “earth-is-first” philosophy, vicious trade barriers are being erected against us un-opposed, and the rewards of our modern society - that we should be permitted to enjoy without guilt - are being touted as sinful.
As British Scientist John Brignell, in an excellent article “Global Warming as Religion and not Science” puts it:
“No one has bettered Mencken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involve an improvement or even maintenance of human contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy of life would involve swings and roundabout, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy now is sinful – holidays, driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free from the stink of rotting garbage, and on and on.”
(To read the article click here>>>)
Even as you read this column, European tourists are being advised against long distance air travel to places like New Zealand because of the carbon emissions. The wine industry is presently being threatened by new “food mile” sanctions, but this is only the beginning. Soon this new form of trade barrier may be applied to all of our exports - meat, dairy, wool, horticulture …everything.
With such massive trade sanctions just around the corner, New Zealand does not need politicians who are playing the populist global warming game. We need leaders with the courage to challenge the junk science that underpins the climate change propaganda in the same way that the President of Czechoslovakia is doing.
President Vaclav Klaus believes that global warming is a socialist construct that is now being used as a powerful weapon to undermine freedom: “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment”. (See “Freedom, Not Climate, is at Risk” by Vaclav Klaus, click to view>>>).
He goes on to say: “Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians".
World renowned British conservationist Professor David Bellamy, who is this week’s NZ Centre for Political Research’s guest commentator, is hugely concerned about the global warming bandwagon: “Am I worried about carbon induced global warming? The answer is no and yes. No because there has been no sign of global warming in New Zealand since 1955, this year snow has fallen in Portugal for the first time in 52 years and 3 US states are united by the fact that they have recorded their lowest temperatures ever. Yes because it has become a political football that has lost its foundations in real science”.
While David totally rejects the false myth of global warming, he is a committed conservationist who recognises the enormous challenges that we face and the important leadership role – and difference - that our government can take in these areas:
“New Zealand leads the world in the eradication of feral plants and animals making restoration of the natural ecosystems that kept the biosphere in balance long before the IPCC was invented. Habitat destruction and the loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest threats to climate and landscape stability. I beg your government to continue to lead the world in this sustainable endeavour”. (To read David’s opinion piece click the sidebar link>>>)
Global warmers have created a vast new vested-interest machine with their climate change construct. Business and industry have not been slow to take advantage of the opportunities and many scientific institutions are jumping on the bandwagon to get their hands on the lavish grants that are now available. Meanwhile, research into solar activity is ignored even though it is clearly the key driver of climate since - if the sun stopped shining the earth’s temperature would fall towards absolute zero and all of man’s climate change efforts would be exposed as inconsequential.
by the way that was by Muriel Newman from www.nzcpr.com
I guess the short answer to questions about the relation of science to climate change is that it doesn't actually matter that much. At least insofar as we're looking at how we live on our planet.
Humanity as a collective group is living on this planet in a way that is not sustainable. Unless we change this, then we will not continue to exist. Global warming just highlights a particular way in which our lifestyle might impact our environment negatively.
That was a long and boring read imo. Isn't there anything more substantial or convincing written by climate change deniers?
WTB: T-shirt saying "I believed it before the hype."
ironic that you ask whether there's anything more substantial or convincing written by climate change deniers, yet gave a insubstantial and unconvincing rebuttal in the first place. take for example this paragraph:
"Humanity as a collective group is living on this planet in a way that is not sustainable. Unless we change this, then we will not continue to exist. Global warming just highlights a particular way in which our lifestyle might impact our environment negatively."
that's an error of fact in itself and only theory. for example, development in nuclear energy would do a lot to solve carbon emissions, and is the way of the future. at the moment the things global warming activist recommend (such as using energy efficient light bulbs and not driving your car and the other little things listed in Al Gore's documentary) are basically extremely outweighed by one plane trip
if you truly do genuinely give a crap you could click on the links in that column (you'll have to go through nzcpr.com and click archives, article "junk science", then they're on the sidebar) as i don't know how to hyperlink in blogger). read some of the scientific stuff, such as Augie's report
Any economic model based on unlimited growth is not going to do so well long term, right?
Nuclear energy - which I think is stupid for scientific reasons, but if we assume it plausible - is at best a temporary fix. Using another non-renewable resource will only leave us scratching our heads in another 2 decades or so. The problem is not our use of technology, it is our mindset. In particular it is your mindset that is the problem.
well i don't know about you but my mindset looks at things from a practical point of view, if you want to live like a caveman go ahead
WTB (whatever that stands for): T-shirt saying "my carbon footprint is 4% of Al Gore's, and i don't even give a shit"
Ironically, the poorly named 'cavemen' were far more practical than you, or I, could ever dream of being.
But, if you are out for quick thrills and short term gains (as a civilisation), then I guess there is a "practicality" to destroying the environment that supports you.
I said I didn't care for what scientists say about global warming, it isn't the central issue, but I care even less about what propagandists and politicians have to say.
"But, if you are out for quick thrills and short term gains (as a civilisation), then I guess there is a "practicality" to destroying the environment that supports you."
I was thinking more along the lines of economic development resulting in a better standard of living for the poor people in the world (via free trade and industrial growth), if you have something against that it's hypocritical for you to be using a computer, which would not have come into existence without it
if you're interested in caring about the environment you should read a book called 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton, it's about recognising that good intentions with bad information (or in your case, no information) doesn't actually work
Post a Comment
<< Home