Global warming! A raging issue that has become one of the signature issues representing the metaphorical and philosophical divide fracturing America. On both sides the groups have sectionalized themselves off into factions that would make James Madison roll over in his grave. In the left corner the scientists and the environmentalist, railing against – what they see as – the further desecration of the natural environment and humanities pollution laden march to imminent apocalypse. In the right corner the Evangelical Christian Right and a few other patches of the Republican Party claiming that the science behind global warming is false and polluting the atmosphere does…no damage….to the Earth.
Each group proclaims a monopoly on the correct “science,” with both constantly striving to discredit the other. Is Global Warming a real threat or is it simply the paranoid rant of some dope smoking tree hugger, as the right would have you believe? And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?
When George Bush led us into his war of personal gain and vendetta—creating his own make believe threat – his motivation was clear and distinguishable. He is an oil barron and there is quite a bit of oil in the Middle East. One can easily see why it behooves a President who is a champion for the Petroleum industry to try to assert as much American influence and control as possible in a region that is so rich with the desired resource.
But with global warming the reasons for creating a fictitious threat are less clear. This gets to the heart of the true issue behind the debatable positions as they are related to global warming. In short, why is this debate even occurring? What could the left possibly gain – other then the satisfaction of trying to save the planet – from alerting the population to this potentially catastrophic issue.
This question needs to be examined closer and expounded upon. Why does the Right, and particularly the Evangelicals, have a problem with the idea that global warming is real? What exactly do these people have to gain by disproving the idea that polluting the atmosphere is harmful to the ecological health of the earth? In fact, what exactly is their counter argument? That polluting is harmless?
Now, when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some “pseudo-scientific” diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect.
Let’s say, purely for examinational purposes, that the warming unbelievers are correct and the earth has always been warming, or gone through cycles, or whatever they are barking at the pulpits this week. What direction then, as a country, do we move in with our environmental policy if this is true? Do we completely lift all emissions restrictions, allowing companies to pump whatever they want into the atmosphere? If global warming is a fake concept it wouldn’t really seem to matter. In fact, taking away those restrictions would….probably save….big business…….a lot of money. Ah Ha!
Suddenly we’ve stumbled upon a profound concept that both sides seem to be unwilling to acknowledging or, in the Democrats’ case, are completely ignorant towards. The less environmental restrictions there are on corporate entities in the United States the lower the overhead operating costs for said companies. This is a basic economic concept; it is not a secret nor is it a liberal or conservative perspective or bent.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pablo
A very well written unresearched article in my opinion. The question is not whether or not there is global warming, but whether human being are causing it particularly through c02 emmissions.aThis is highly debatable. In fact over 400 scientists met in New York just last week denouncing that that c02 is the cause. BBC also aired a documentary last year with numerous climatologists all saying that it was a hoax. I am not a born again christin, nor a right wing republican. I do however question Mr. Gore's assertions, particularly when he has no problem with a 30,000 dollar electric bill that he had on his residence last year. Just a wee bit hypocritical in my humble opinion.
Not only is their considerable debate on this issue still, I find it amazing that so many of the folks that do claim that global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions to say that the debate is over, it is not by a long shot.
I personally believe that most of this is being perpetrated by people that want global government, particularly by people such as Maurice Strong, I wonder if you have researched him! As he is one of the world's leading proponent of it.
2 - Acrapalypse Now
You know, if I had seaside property I would be worried about the environment too.
3 - Earth & Economy
It sure would be nice if we could get past the global warming debate and start to focus on the real issues at hand. I never understood what the harm is in caring for the planet and slowing down our consumption of resources. I certainly don't want to be closed minded about having an open discussion concerning global warming. But at some point the discussion should lead to a pursuit of factual knowledge. So, what if global warming didn't happen? Well then there is no harm. And, what if it does? Then, I think we all know the answer. I am not willing to take the risk of being wrong. Too much is at stake for future generations.
4 - GeoR
The Evangelical Christian right has no part in the questioning of anthropogenic global warming. The term is used in this article as a feeble attempt to denigrate the opposing view. When I came to that point in the article I stopped reading because the author had destroyed his credibility.
5 - Irene Wagner
Sarcasm Alert: I counted 24 instances of the word "warming" in this article, and 8 instances of the word "Christian." Anthony, will an essential part of the "final solution" be the development of an eco-friendly gas chamber?
6 - HighCastle
It might have been a good article, if you hadn't launched so many personal attacks against the Christians. People are generally not influenced by articles that attack them on a personal level.
7 - Dave Nalle
The main problem with this article = putting aside all the petty technical ones - is that the author has no idea what he's talking about. He doesn't understand where the objections to the global warming movement come from, the basis for those objections or who the actual people objecting are. Instead of addressing the real issues he sets up the straw man of some sort of bizarro Christian anti-science conspiracy and attacks that as if it really existed, when it does not.
Real opposition to the global warming movement comes from people who are concerned about issues of national sovereignty and individual liberty and scientific empiricism. For most the problem is not with global warming as science, it's with the politicization of the issue, where it is being used as a power grab by internationalist interests and where it has become an absolutist religion where no dissent or even scientific inquiry into the issue will be tolerated.
Dave
8 - Irene Wagner
I'm guessing there are atheists, Christians (I personally know whose company is trying to get funding for wind-generated turbines he helped develop), Jews and Buddhists who have good ideas that would wean the US from its dependence on oil. This is a goal that would be good for the US from a foreign policy (and because the US is an empire, global) standpoint, and arguably good for the world ecologically.
Unified efforts require unity.
9 - Tony
I'm glad I generated the discussion with this piece. The point was to get past the science debate where we examined very small factors and argue over 1/10 of a degrees. I wanted to examine the idea that it seems ridiculous to argue against conservation and that is it corporate America, using the Christian right as their prosititues per usual, leading the march against it and I'm not finding anyone really repudiating that.
Like it or not the Christian Right is tied in with this argument. Their anti-stem cell, anti-global warming, anti-science stances have been ruining this planet ever since Gallello. If you don't believe me google the environmental policy of the Bush Administration, also known as "The Dominion Theory."
The interesting thing in these comments that I did not see was a counterpoint. The writer is insulted, the article called inflammatory, but this is where the substance stops.
"national sovereignty and individual liberty and scientific empiricism."
National soverignty? individual liberty --- to what? pollute? Scientific emperiricism? Well, I guess I go back to our old friend Gallello. The world is flat! The world is flat!
On one final not, Christian right, i'm sorry. I'm sorry ever Republican pimps you out every four to eight years. I'm sorry you ignorantly come out and vote time and time again and get nothing in return. I know you had high hopes for G.W.; he seemed like one of your guys. And then all of a sudden no gay marriage ammendment, no overturning Rowe v Wade; what happened?
Good job guys, good debate.
10 - Tony
*note, *every
Still getting use to this online posting stuff. Really appreciate the comments again guys. Thanks for reading.
11 - Maurice
Anthony,
the church of Global Warming is no different than any other faith based control mechanism. Its goal is to centralize as much power as possible. The tenets of the 'faith' are unimportant. It could be global cooling as was proselytized in the early 70's. Or it could be CFC's which is an older theory not thrown out there so much these days. The actual beliefs are unimportant as long as they cause fear and action.
Here is an overly optimistic quote concerning the Skeptics Conference:
“This is their chance to speak out,” said Bast. “If 400 or 500 ‘skeptics’ from around the world assemble in New York City, it will be difficult for policymakers and journalists to ignore us.”
I think the media was able to ignore them just fine.
12 - Tony
Irene,
I missed your comment and wanted to address it. On the unity aspect you are absolutely correct. Only when we get everyone on board will we truely work towards making the planet healthy.
I am actually a Christian, believe it or not, and I know there are many Christians doing phenominal things to help the environment and people. The "Christan Right" and the "Evangelicals" are referenced -- in this piece -- as they are in the current political climate; as the fantatical group led by Fallwell and all his kooks, screaming from the pulpit and Bob Jones "University."
Again, while it is true that all need to be involved in the battle to save the earth, when a group regularly preaches that science is constantly wrong and uses terms likes scientific empiricism (why can't a process like evolution be so complicated and powerful that God created it?), they are harming the rest of the population by holding back advancement.
13 - Jim Andrew
This article is a crock. The AGW proponents have based their claim on four points.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Since 1880 CO2 has been going up and so has the temperature.
3. Ice Core studies have shown that CO2 and temperature go in lock step for the past 400,000 years or so.
4. There are no other possible reasons for the warming.
Although the first point is true, the other ones have been shown to be false.
2. From 1940 to 1975 even though CO2 was increasing, the was a global cooling.
3. Better Ice Core studies have shown that temperature goes up first and then 2-8 hundred years later, CO2 goes up (ocean heat up and give off CO2). Cause cannot follow effect, it must preceed it.
4. Sunspot activity impedes cosmic rays from reaching earth. Cosmic rays have been shown to cause cloud formation. Therefore when there is a lot of sunspot, there will be fewer clouds and higher temperatures.
I have never hear any evangelicals talk about these things. This is just a left wing strawman attack. CO2 is not pollution, but a trace gas absolutely essential for life. In fact as science looks for possible life on other planets they look for the presence of CO2.
14 - Doug Hunter
It's a complete waste of time to formulate a logical rebuttal to rantings of a true believer, but we're all still here I suppose. Naivety and ignorance abound throughout the article but let me just touch on a couple of points.
"And if this threat is scare propaganda, what exactly is the endgame for the left?"
Are you f-ing blind? What IS the sole goal and the very definition of the left?.... Getting government in control of the individual and industry. Does the 'answer' to global warming achieve those goals? Put your two brain cells together and even you can figure it out.
"when you ask a global warming non-believer this general line of questioning they will most likely launch into some 'pseudo-scientific' diatribe about warming cycles and how the earth has always been heated in small increments, ect. "
Translation: Opponents to catastrophic warming want to discuss scientific facts and I being the high priest of the religion of the environment will hear nothing of this heresy. There's nothing 'psuedo-scientific' about the 400ft rise in sea lvl since the last ice age (only 18K years ago), the 15 degree warming over northern Europe in 50 years when coming out of the Younger-Dryas, or any of the other comparisons one can make to put this 1 degree in 150 years and 5 inches of sea level rise in perspective. Those are scientific facts.
Then there's calling CO2 a pollutant (in which case the word pollutant is meaningless because it includes literally everything), gratitous personal attacks against christians, and the world's biggest strawman (congrats). Unfortunately, I'll leave the rebuttal to those with more time and patience for this nonsense.
15 - Tony
Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? Yeah...its funny you should mention the rantings of a "true believer."
Here's an idea: We could Bush's disgusting war and use the multiple trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts. I bet that would stimulate the economy and help save the environment.
It's about a frame of mind that is destructive.
16 - Maurice
Tony -> ...trillions saved to give corporations massive tax cuts.
At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes.
17 - MikeU
Please get this right: CO2 is an essential trace gas, not "pollution". It makes up nearly 4 tenths of 1 tenth of 1% of our atmosphere by volume, and 95-97% of that small amount is due to the natural carbon cycle on our planet -- the one that feeds us. CO2 doesn't become uncomfortable for human beings until it's about 5X its present concentration, and doesn't become toxic until it's about 12X its current concentration.
This is also not some sort of battle between evangelical Christians and Science: it's a battle of political scare-mongering vs reasoned debate. The science is far from "settled", and depends largely on the climate models we have -- which we *know* have serious flaws. Even some of the underlying math for those models may be fatally flawed: the original solution of the differential equations for a semi-transparent atmosphere assumed an infinite thickness for the atmosphere (because that made the equations manageable). Recent efforts to rework those equations with the proper boundary conditions have turned up some very interesting results - they get rid of the discontinuity at the ground that the current equations have, and provide a much better match to the observed data, both for our own atmosphere, and even for Mars' atmosphere. The problem with them? They also show that CO2-driven warming rolls off much faster than current models predict. If accepted, that would probably result in billions of $$ less funding for climate research...
18 - Tony
At least? I am supply sider when it comes to my economic beliefs and your assumption that I am some leftest radicale goes to the heart of the problem with the perverted form of conservatism that is the norm today.
Emission standards are vital as we expand into a global economy but these standards MUST NOT be only for the United States. This is a global issue and the playing field must be level.
Now what has George Bush done to level the playing field for American Corporations in the global economy? He outsources defense contracts! He does the hulla dance with the shieks begging for oil!
Barry Goldwater would spit in George Bush's face. Conservatism is about small government that stays out of the way of the capitalism economy, and allows the corporations to generate the stimuli that moves the American Economy.
George Bush just spends spends spends and hides behind the guise of some minimal tax cuts or some garbage rebate. Ron Paul is a true Republican and yet he got pushed to the side as some loon while Romney and McCain claimed to be part of the "Regean Revolution." Ronald Regean wielded American economic power like a battle ax; he didn't have to invaded countries and occupy regions to prove American machismo.
Back on topic, there is so reason we can't maximize capitalism and environmentalism. Think about the money and the industry possible with green energy sources. Money generated in America that stays in America.
Everyone equated enivornmentalism to more government agencies when in reality all that's necessary is to give tax breaks and other benefits to corporations meeting various green requirements. It is also vital to acknowledge the problem so we can focus on research to make those green technologies cheaper to the general business consumer corporations.
19 - Maurice
Tony,
your fevered comments come across as one who has truly accepted the church of Global Warming. So yes I will be suprised by any rational statements you make.
You need to realize there are plenty of Skeptics that are rational. Perhaps you should consider some of the comments before dismissing them out of hand.
Just because I don't go to your church (of Global Warming) doesn't mean I'm going to hell.
20 - Doug Hunter
"Ok so environmentalists that are trying to get the world to adhere to emissions stardards are really just trying to create conditions where its possible for the government take over big business? "
No, read what I said. I was referencing what the left had to gain, not environmentalists. They are not one and the same although environmental controls = government controls so they often work together.
21 - Lee Richards
Re #16:
"At least you agree corporations are paying massive taxes."
Corporations pay zero taxes;their customers pay their taxes for them.
***
This debate will be over soon. With oil heading toward $150-$200 a barrel--and running out anyway--the next argument will be about perspiration pollution and personal warming as we walk and bike everywhere we go, and farm our lawns.
22 - Tony
Ok, lets say you are all right and global warming is a huge, fake, leftist conspiracy to turn us all into socialists. Where does that leave us? Should we just let companies pollute at will? If global warming is fake then it really shouldn't matter so I guess let's just let it ride.
I feel I did my argument an injustice by coming across as imflamitory as I did. It obviously deflected from my main point as none of my detractors have addressed it.
Once again, I stated that ok, maybe global warming isn't happening, but polluting the air still causes so many adverse effects to the environment that the conservation and emissions regulation movements should be supported, even if you're not doing it to specifically stop global warming.
By arguing against the policies that global warming activists are touting you are hurting the earth in some environmental way, even if the wound is not specifically caused by warming.
23 - Jason
Agreed that pollution is a bad thing and should be controlled. The problem is, should CO2 really be defined as pollution? If global warming is not occurring, CO2 is NOT pollution, and trying to control it wastes much money that could otherwise be put in to controlling real pollutants.
And there is as much money in controlling CO2 as there is in not controlling CO2, the only question is, who gets it? Somebody is getting paid to create CO2 scrubbers, and ethanol cars (and ethanol, there's a fiasco...), and 'carbon credits,' not to mention the fund raising that is possible with such a scary issue. Both sides stand to gain financially if the global warming argument goes their way, so please don't put the greed just on one side of the equation.
24 - Clavos
Tony,
Very few (if any) skeptics deny that the earth is in fact in a warming cycle.
What we question is the degree to which human activity contributes to that warming. We also question many of the predictions for the near and intermediate future as to what deleterious effects (if any) warming will have.
Too much of the "science" associated with the issue is "junk" science, and unfortunately gets a lot of exposure in the media, leading to stronger conviction on the part of those of us already questioning.
When Al Gore predicted enormous increases in sea levels in a few years, he was refuted even by the scientists who most ardently support the concept of anthropogenic GW.
I am all in favor of a major effort (along the lines of the man to the moon project) to develop alternative fuels, for example. Development of non-carbon based fuels WILL reduce the pollution we DO have, but more importantly, it will release us from our bondage to the Arabs and the likes of Hugo Chavez.
Our dependence on foreign oil is hazardous not only to the atmospheric health, but to our economic health as well.
25 - handyguy
The GW-skeptics on here accuse the GW-believers of being dogmatic and inflexible. Yet I do not detect much flexibility in the skeptics' comments, either.
Clavos and Maurice are not very open to the possibility that they might be mistaken, even though their whole argument is that there is no proof of human-caused warming - not that there is definitive counter-evidence.
Possibly both sides should be open to some sort of "truth" that resides between the two extremes.