Environmental Stewardship News Round-Up
The following items appear in the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Newsletter, June 13, 2007:
1. Can You Spell Propaganda?
by E. Calvin Beisner
Last week I lectured on global warming and environmentalism in general for a youth leadership development organization called Summit Ministries, in Manitou Springs, Colorado. It attracts late-high and college students to two-week sessions in which they learn, from professors from around the United States, the Biblical world view and how it affects various academic disciplines. At one point I asked the students--about 175 of them--how many had seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. A large percentage had. I asked how many had seen it in school--most who had seen it had seen it there. Then I asked how many had seen any film giving a competing perspective. None had. Nice to know our public (and no doubt some private) schools are working hard to ensure that students know how to understand and evaluate competing arguments. Some good competing films may be found at the following links:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (available in July)
“Climate Catastrophe Canceled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change”
“An Inconvenient Truth . . . Or Convenient Fiction?”
E-mail the Cornwall Alliance to inquire about two other films:
“Global Warming: The Science and the Solutions,” with Cornwall Alliance spokesmen Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, theologian/ethicist; Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist; and Dr. Ken Chilton, environmental economist; plus climatologists Dr. John Christy and Dr. Tim Ball and theologian/ethicist Dr. Richard Land.
and
“Evangelicals and Global Warming: Debating the Science, Economics, and Ethics of Global Warming,” in which Dr. Beisner debates Evangelical Climate Initiative principal author Dr. David Gushee at Union University.
2. Bible-Backed Christians Debate Global Warming Before Senate
by Michelle Vu, Christian Post, June 8, 2007
(Note: Three of the witnesses before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works are members of the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance and have signed our “Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming”: David Barton, Russell Moore, and Jim Tonkowich.--ECB)
WASHINGTON – Evangelical, mainline and the Catholic traditions were all citing scriptures from the same Bible as support for their stance on global warming, yet they still remained intensely divided over the issue as they shared their views before a U.S. senate committee on Thursday.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works first heard from the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, who strongly supports the belief that global warming is real and mainly human induced.
“As one who has been formed both through a deep Christian faith and as a scientist, I believe that science has revealed to us without equivocation that climate change and global warming are real and caused in significant part by human activities,” said the Episcopal Church head.
Jefferts Schori, formerly an oceanographer, was backed by John Carr of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Climate Initiative composed of over 100 prominent evangelical leaders. Signers of the ECI include Rick Warren, author of the Purpose Driven Life; Leith Anderson, senior pastor of Wooddale Church in St. Paul, Minn., and president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE); and Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago.
However, down the table were conservative evangelical leaders who oppose laying most blame for global warming on humans and reject proposals to significantly cut carbon emission – the main contributor of greenhouse gases – which they say will have a devastating effect on the world’s poor.
Evangelical ethicist E. Calvin Beisner of Interfaith Stewardship Alliance was quoted in one of the panelist’s statement that reducing energy and increasing its cost will be harmful to the world’s poor communities because it will slow economic development, reduce overall productivity and increase cost of all goods for the poor.
The panel’s divided views on global warming are reminiscent of a recent high-profile controversy in the evangelical community over the global warming activism of the NAE’s vice president, the Rev. Richard Cizik. Dozens of prominent evangelical leaders including Dr. James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer had called for either the end of Cizik’s evangelical climate change campaign or for his forced resignation if he resisted.
Letter signers had accused Cizik of misrepresenting evangelicals when he spoke on global warming as if they were united on the issue and that his advocacy was detracting attention from more important issues such as abortion and same-sex unions.
During an NAE board meeting, however, members affirmed creation care as an important evangelical agenda and commended Cizik for his overall work representing evangelicals.
The Senate-assembled panel on Thursday was once again a strong reminder of the disparity on global warming within, not only evangelicals, but the entire Christian body.
Given the contentious nature of the issue, a Southern Baptist representative warned Christian leaders to resist from using the Bible carelessly to support their views.
“To tie the authority of the Bible to the shifting and revisable scientific and public policy proposals of one’s global warming agenda is unhelpful to the debate at best and trivializing of Christian faith at worst,” advised Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The SBC is the nation’s largest protestant denomination with 16 million members and 42,000 churches.
“The SBC and other like-minded evangelical groups are not opposed to environmental protection,” explained Moore, who is the dean of SBTS’s school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration. “We are, however, concerned about the ways in which religious arguments are used in this debate, possibly with harmful consequences both for public policy and for the mission of the church.”
Moore affirmed that Southern Baptists do care about global warming “because the creation reveals the glory of God,” but that science does not absolutely support humans being the main cause for global warming and that cutting carbon emissions will be in the best interest for the majority of the world’s population.
Other religious leaders who spoke included the Rev. Dr. Jim Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and Rabbi David Saperstein, director and council of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.
Related articles:
Global Warming Gets Religion
Faith Leaders Debate Effects of Limits on Emissions
Religious leaders join climate debate
Religious leaders testify in Senate on warming
3. Global Warming as Religion and Not Science
by John Brignell
Brignell’s article is fascinating. He is definitely not a believing Christian or Jew; indeed, he rejects religion outright and defines faith as belief without evidence (contrary to Hebrews 11:1 and the definition of faith defended by Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark as “voluntary assent to an understood proposition”; see Clark’s Faith and Saving Faith or What Is Saving Faith?). But his description of the sort of religion that global warming alarmism is fits perfectly the highly subjective, relativist, experientialist “religion” that came to predominate even in Christian circles from and after existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard--a leap into the dark without or, all the better, contrary to evidence. All that Brignell finds objectionable as the religious qualities of global warming alarmism the Christian should find objectionable as well, not because it is religious but because it is religious in a way explicitly contrary to Christian doctrine.--ECB
4. G8 Summit, Designed to Breathe New Life into Kyoto Process, Has Seen It Expire
by Dominic Lawson
. . . . The British media seem to have developed a dangerously Eurocentric view of the global politics of climate change. Another headline, this time over a weekend article by the doyen of British environmentalist writers, Geoffrey Lean, declared: “The world must isolate Bush over climate change.” The truth, as has become clear during the course of the G8 summit at Heiligendamm, is that it is Bush who has isolated Europe over climate change. Canada, China and even Japan have shown enthusiasm for Bush’s proposal to bypass the UN and hold a series of multilateral meetings - to be convened by America - which would seek agreement on mutually acceptable targets for CO2 emission reductions.
This ambush, not so much a cold shower as a diplomatic drenching for the summit hostess, Angela Merkel, should have come as no surprise. For some time now, the Americans have involved the major CO2-emitting nations in negotiations quite separate from the Kyoto process. This negotiating process also has a name, rather less well known in this country: it is called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Essentially, it adopts the American idea of solutions relying on technology rather than taxes and carbon caps: new forms of energy efficiency, so-called “clean coal” and fuel cells are the sort of things the Asia-Pacific Partnership has been discussing. . . .
Yesterday’s G8 communiqué made no mention of a specific temperature target. It merely stated that the G8 “will consider seriously the proposal to halve emissions by 2050.” Yes, and every 1 January, I consider seriously going on a diet. If they don’t fall for that rubric, the European media will probably declare that Bush has “wrecked” the Kyoto process and bemoan the fact that there isn’t yet a Democrat in the White House. They seem to forget that the Senate voted 95 to 0 against ratifying Kyoto during the Clinton presidency. Nancy Pelosi, the new Democrat Speaker, travelled to Berlin just before the G8 summit, and while saying, “I hope the [US] administration will be open to listening to why it’s important to go forward, perhaps in a different way”, she studiously avoided endorsing Kyoto - to her hosts’ bitter disappointment.
The summit which was meant to breathe life into the Kyoto process has seen it expire. To adapt Monty Python: Frau Merkel resembles the stubborn pet shop keeper played by Michael Palin. This Kyoto process is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
Read the whole article here.
Read the G8 Summit’s Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, and Energy Security (PDF), paragraphs 40 and following, beginning on p. 13.
Related Commentary:
Vague G8 Means More Confusion for Green Business
by James Murray, BusinessGreen, 10 June 2007
I keep feeling like I should post something on this week’s “historic” G8 Summit and its agreement on climate change, but I’m trying hard to work out how a commitment to meet to discuss the issue at a later date with a view to considering, maybe a target for a “substantial” reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that might well be voluntary constitutes news. . . .
The Poor are Paying the Price for Climate and Energy Hysteria
by Jane Macartney in Beijing and Tim Reid in Washington, The Times, 12 June 2007
China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology.
Beijing’s move underlines concerns that ethanol production is driving up rapidly the costs of corn and grain. It appears to reflect a growing reality about food-based alternative fuel: it is far more expensive both economically and environmentally, than Western politicians are likely to admit. . . .
5. Bush 1, Greens 0
by Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2007
Just call him George W. Bush, star international diplomat. Don’t snicker, don’t spit out your coffee. Instead, read over the final document on climate change released yesterday by the Group of Eight.
Yes, it’s a major shift in how the world will address the supposed threat of global warming. It’s also largely the vision put forth years ago by none other than George W. Bush -- that international cowboy -- even if few European politicians will admit it.
Don’t expect anyone to admit it. When Mr. Bush unveiled his new climate framework last week, calling on the world’s powers to reduce greenhouse emissions, it was portrayed as a capitulation. He’d removed the last “obstacle” to world unity on this issue, and seen the error of his ways. At this week’s Democratic presidential debate, every candidate vowed to fix the damage Mr. Bush had done to America ' s international reputation, his Kyoto failure the obvious example.
There’s been a capitulation on global warming, but it hasn’t happened in the Oval Office. The Kyoto cheerleaders at the United Nations and the European Union are realizing their government-run experiment in climate control is a mess, one that’s incidentally failed to reduce carbon emissions. They’ve also understood that if they want the biggest players on board -- the U.S., China, India -- they need an approach that balances economic growth with feel-good environmentalism. Yesterday’s G-8 agreement acknowledged those realities and tolled Kyoto’s death knell. Mr. Bush, 1; sanctimonious greens, 0.
Not that the president’s handling of the climate issue has been stellar. The science of global warming is still unsettled, yet Mr. Bush in 2002 caved and laid out a voluntary emissions-reduction program. . . .
But compared to Kyoto , Mr. Bush’s vision has been sublime. The basic Kyoto philosophy is this: Set ever lower mandatory targets, ratcheting down energy use, and by extension economic growth. The program was viewed by environmentalists and politicians as a convenient excuse for getting rid of unpopular fossil fuels, such as coal. In Kyoto-world, governments exist to create draconian rules, even if those dictates are disguised by “market” mechanisms such as cap-and-trade.
President Bush’s approach is opposite: Allow economies to grow, along the way inspiring new technologies and new forms of energy that lower C02 emissions. Implicit is that C02-control technologies should focus on energy sources we use today, including fossil fuels. In Bush-world, the government is there to incentivize industry, coordinate with it, and set broad goals.
Take your pick. Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There’s rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government “market” in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president ' s oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.
Europeans may be slow, but they aren’t silly, and they’ve quietly come around to some of Mr. Bush’s views. . . .
Then there’s Mr. Bush’s insistence that any “global” program must include big emitters such as China and India (Kyoto doesn’t). Though it received little press, the U.S. in 2005 started the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a voluntary climate pact between it and Australia, Japan, South Korea, China and India. Unlike Kyoto -- in which a government sets a national target for emissions, and then forces a few unlucky industries to make cuts -- the Partnership gets industry execs from every sector across the table from relevant government ministers, and devises practical approaches to reductions. This parallel diplomatic approach has proved far more acceptable to countries like China , and played a role in that country’s own recently released climate plan. . . .
Yesterday’s declaration, far from mandatory targets, instead sets a “global goal” of halving emissions by 2050. It invites the “major emerging economies” to join in this endeavor. It acknowledges that different approaches across the world can “coordinate rather than compete.” It reports that “technology is a key to mastering climate change” and lauds government “incentives.” It admits that “over the next 25 years, fossil fuels will remain the world ' s dominant source of energy,” and talks up the “peaceful use of nuclear energy.” It even explains that any program “must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies.” Close your eyes, and you might think this was President Bush in the Rose Garden. . . .
Read the whole article here.
Related articles:
China, India reject G8 climate change deal
G8 can’t impose climate targets on India: PM
China, India insist climate change solution lies in the West
UN: Challenge is how to include China and India
Bush has taken on Europe’s role as a Green champion
by Benny Peiser
When the history of Europe’s waning pre-eminence and the rise of Asia’s new superpowers is written, the German G8 summit that has just ended in the Baltic seaside town of Heiligendamm will be regarded as a momentous turning point. It will also be seen as the moment when the Western powers decided to bury their hatchets over Kyoto and start exerting pressure on their Asian challengers.
The failure of Germany and its European Union partners to push through their key goals stands for a diplomatic defeat that epitomizes Europe’s shrinking influence in international climate negotiations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had set three ambitious climate goals for the G8 summit. She wanted to sway the United States and other G8 countries to commit to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. She also wanted them to limit the world’s temperature rise to 2C and to increase fuel efficiency by 20%. In the end, not one these targets was accepted by her non-EU partners.
German and European diplomats were taken aback during the negotiations inthe run-up to the summit; not only the United States, but Japan, Canada and even Russia opposed Europe’s concept of unilateral G8 targets. Germany’s original plan, to push for ambitious goals with the aim of isolating President George W. Bush, fell short as even China and India came out against the idea of mandatory emission caps. . . .
. . . The actual deal agreed to at the G8 climate summit is broadly based on the U.S.- and Canadian-backed climate plan presented by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In early May, Abe officially announced that he had obtained Mr. Bush’s support for his new climate policy. At the G8 summit, they would seek an international consensus for an action plan proposing global steps aimed at halving greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 from current levels.
One catch: The U.S.-Japanese plan, now adopted by the G8, also agreed that any effective international framework on climate change must include China, India and other major greenhouse-gas emitters from the developing world. In other words, G8 countries are willing “to consider” reducing emissions in 2050 by 50% so long as all major emitters join in that target. Crucially, by offering a deal to cut global CO2 emissions by half, not just those of a handful of richer nations, the G8 has shifted international pressure away from the West and on to China and India. . . .
“Nothing is going to happen in terms of substantial reduction unless China and India participate,” Mr. Bush said . . . .
For the time being, the climate agreement by the G8 summit creates an intractable impasse that is almost insurmountable in the short term. For too long, the climate-change debate has been overheated. At times, it looked almost unstoppable, like a runaway train in the movies. Like in the movies, the runaway train has crashed into the buffers of the hard reality of economic and political constraints. The lack of a practical short-term solution to the climate impasse means that policymakers should begin to tone down the hype and prepare citizens for the long haul. The time has come for cooler heads.
Read the whole article at here.
Comment: The two articles linked just above this one report that China and India refuse to jeopardize their economic development by committing to major CO2 emission reductions. That implies two things: (1) They (and other poor, developing countries) recognize, as the Cornwall Alliance has insisted all along, that major CO2 emission reductions can be accomplished only at the price of slowing economic development, which will harm the poor far more than global warming. As Peiser wrote, “in the absence of alternative energy technologies [China] simply cannot survive any caps, which would inevitably stifle economic growth, thus putting the country at risk of social unrest and upheaval. As we put it in ”A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming" (PDF), p. 16, a year ago:
(2) Since without participation in emissions reductions by major emitters in the developing world there is no way the reductions will have any significant impact on future temperatures, mitigation of global warming falls off the table, and attention must go to adaptation, again as the Cornwall Alliance has insisted. To quote again from the “Call to Truth,” p. 16:
In short, Kyoto is dead, and so is any other attempt to reduce future warming. Adaptation through economic development is now the name of the game.
Looking to the future, we can now expect increasing pressure from environmental advocacy groups as well as developed countries’ governments and international organizations on China, India, and other developing nations to capitulate and make CO2 reductions a higher priority than economic development. The governments of those countries would be foolish to bend to the pressure, and Cornwall will argue against that move just as we have argued against Kyoto.--ECB
6. Green Doom-Mongers are Traumatizing Children
Australian Childhood Foundation, 11 June 2007
New study shows children fear environmental disaster
A report released today by the Australian Childhood Foundation, in the lead up to their annual fundraiser Childhood Hero Day Thursday 14 June, has revealed that Australian children are deeply concerned about the state of the environment and the impact of climate change.
The report, ‘Children’s fears, hopes and heroes - Modern Childhood in Australia’, surveyed 600 10-14 year-olds across Australia and revealed that:
52% are scared that there will not be enough water in the future
44% of children are worried about the impact of climate change
* 43% of children are worried about the pollution in the air and water
Dr Joe Tucci, CEO of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said “Children’s sense of their place in the world is under threat. Children are nervous about global problems and the implications for the future they are faced with. . . .”
Read the full article (PDF).
Comment: What makes this particularly sad is that the doom-and-gloom is so unrealistic. The trends on all kinds of environmental matters are definitely for the better, as Bjorn Lomborg demonstrated with overwhelming empirical evidence in The Skeptical Environmentalist several years ago. More important, the underlying factors driving the trends are now pretty well understood, and they boil down to this: growing wealth enables societies to solve environmental problems. For powerful explanation and demonstration of that, see Indur M. Goklany’s just-released The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. --ECB
7. Leftist Nation Shoots Down Global Warming Alarmism in “Dissidents Against Dogma”
by Alexander Cockburn, The Nation, posted June 7, 2007 (for June 25, 2007, print issue)
We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as “the mainstream theory” of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naively conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.
Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the cold war, in concert with the arms industry. There’s money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, “Enrich yourselves!”
The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists--people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly skeptical.
Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his critiques of ice-core data. He’s devastating on the IPCC rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years. In his 1997 paper in the Spring 21st Century Science and Technology, he demolishes this proposition.
Or take Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. He says we’re on a warming trend but that humans have little to do with it, the agent being a longtime change in the sun’s heat. He says solar irradiance will fall within the next few years and we may face the beginning of an ice age. The Russian scientific establishment gave him a green light to use the nation’s space station to measure global cooling.
Now read Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, applied physicist and engineer, retired from California’s academic and corporate sectors, who provides an elegant demonstration of how the CO2 solubility pump in the Earth’s oceans controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of temperature increase, not the cause.
Move to that bane of the fearmongers, Dr. Patrick Michaels, on sabbatical from the University of Virginia, now at the Cato Institute, who has presented in papers and recently his book Meltdown demolitions of almost every claim made by the greenhousers, particularly regarding hurricanes, tornadoes, sea rise, disappearing ice caps, drought and floods. Michaels is often slammed as a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry, but I haven’t seen significant dents made in his scientific critiques.
One of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective comes from Denis Rancourt, . . .
. . . . If the public swallows this new greenhouse dogma, it won’t just be carbon taxes on an airline ticket. It will be huge new carbon offset charges for the alleged carbon savings of the immensely expensive nuclear plants they’re so eager to build to give a cooler, cleaner world to your grandchildren.
Read the whole article here (subscription).
8. Comet Theory Undermines Climate Theory (Both are Doggy Anyway)
by Dennis Avery, American Daily, 8 June 2007
. . . another big chunk of the “evidence” for man-made global warming suddenly disappeared. Poof! Researchers just reported that the world’s most recent case of “abrupt climate change” - which occurred a mere 12,000 years ago - was probably due to a comet strike, not to “climate sensitivity.”
The Younger Dryas occurred as an Ice Age was ending. As the climate began to warm, a huge and sudden rush of fresh meltwater broke out from the Great Lakes and swept out to sea. The water surge was monumental enough that the meltwater lowered the salinity of the ocean, shut down the Atlantic conveyor currents, which disperse the planet’s heat, and threw the northern hemisphere back into another thousand years of Ice Age. It raised temperatures near Greenland by a startling 15 degrees C, even as it doubled annual rainfall.
Modern climatologists have savored the Younger Dryas event as massive evidence of what comes when we push the planet’s climate too close to a “tipping point.” Further human-driven warming, they say, will make such abrupt climate changes more likely, with searing droughts, torrential rainfall, and extreme heat. . . .
At least, that’s what the experts said until the latest meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Acapulco on May 23rd when James Kennett of the University of California/Santa Barbara presented evidence of a dramatically different cause for the Younger Dryas event: a comet that struck somewhere near the Great Lakes. . . .
Read the whole article here.
9. Top Scientist Says Biofuels Are Scam
by Jonathan Leake and Steven Swinford, The Sunday Times, 10 June 2007
THE government’s policy of promoting biofuels for transport will come under harsh attack this week from one of its senior science advisers.
Roland Clift will tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants is a “scam”. . . .
10. Israeli Scientists Turn Dew Into Clean Water
by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, The Jerusalem Post, 10 June 2007
A low-tech way to turn dew into fresh, usable water has been developed by two architects at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
Inspired by the dew-collecting properties of leaves, the invention can extract a minimum of 48 liters of fresh water from the air each day.
Depending on the number of collectors used, an unlimited daily supply of water could be produced even in remote and polluted places. Their invention recently won an international competition seeking to make clean, safe water available to millions around the world.
11. Briefly Noted
Remove Kilimanjaro glacier melt from global warming effects list.
Politics is corrupting science education.
1. Can You Spell Propaganda?
by E. Calvin Beisner
Last week I lectured on global warming and environmentalism in general for a youth leadership development organization called Summit Ministries, in Manitou Springs, Colorado. It attracts late-high and college students to two-week sessions in which they learn, from professors from around the United States, the Biblical world view and how it affects various academic disciplines. At one point I asked the students--about 175 of them--how many had seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. A large percentage had. I asked how many had seen it in school--most who had seen it had seen it there. Then I asked how many had seen any film giving a competing perspective. None had. Nice to know our public (and no doubt some private) schools are working hard to ensure that students know how to understand and evaluate competing arguments. Some good competing films may be found at the following links:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (available in July)
“Climate Catastrophe Canceled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change”
“An Inconvenient Truth . . . Or Convenient Fiction?”
E-mail the Cornwall Alliance to inquire about two other films:
“Global Warming: The Science and the Solutions,” with Cornwall Alliance spokesmen Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, theologian/ethicist; Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist; and Dr. Ken Chilton, environmental economist; plus climatologists Dr. John Christy and Dr. Tim Ball and theologian/ethicist Dr. Richard Land.
and
“Evangelicals and Global Warming: Debating the Science, Economics, and Ethics of Global Warming,” in which Dr. Beisner debates Evangelical Climate Initiative principal author Dr. David Gushee at Union University.
2. Bible-Backed Christians Debate Global Warming Before Senate
by Michelle Vu, Christian Post, June 8, 2007
(Note: Three of the witnesses before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works are members of the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance and have signed our “Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming”: David Barton, Russell Moore, and Jim Tonkowich.--ECB)
WASHINGTON – Evangelical, mainline and the Catholic traditions were all citing scriptures from the same Bible as support for their stance on global warming, yet they still remained intensely divided over the issue as they shared their views before a U.S. senate committee on Thursday.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works first heard from the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, who strongly supports the belief that global warming is real and mainly human induced.
“As one who has been formed both through a deep Christian faith and as a scientist, I believe that science has revealed to us without equivocation that climate change and global warming are real and caused in significant part by human activities,” said the Episcopal Church head.
Jefferts Schori, formerly an oceanographer, was backed by John Carr of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Climate Initiative composed of over 100 prominent evangelical leaders. Signers of the ECI include Rick Warren, author of the Purpose Driven Life; Leith Anderson, senior pastor of Wooddale Church in St. Paul, Minn., and president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE); and Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago.
However, down the table were conservative evangelical leaders who oppose laying most blame for global warming on humans and reject proposals to significantly cut carbon emission – the main contributor of greenhouse gases – which they say will have a devastating effect on the world’s poor.
Evangelical ethicist E. Calvin Beisner of Interfaith Stewardship Alliance was quoted in one of the panelist’s statement that reducing energy and increasing its cost will be harmful to the world’s poor communities because it will slow economic development, reduce overall productivity and increase cost of all goods for the poor.
The panel’s divided views on global warming are reminiscent of a recent high-profile controversy in the evangelical community over the global warming activism of the NAE’s vice president, the Rev. Richard Cizik. Dozens of prominent evangelical leaders including Dr. James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer had called for either the end of Cizik’s evangelical climate change campaign or for his forced resignation if he resisted.
Letter signers had accused Cizik of misrepresenting evangelicals when he spoke on global warming as if they were united on the issue and that his advocacy was detracting attention from more important issues such as abortion and same-sex unions.
During an NAE board meeting, however, members affirmed creation care as an important evangelical agenda and commended Cizik for his overall work representing evangelicals.
The Senate-assembled panel on Thursday was once again a strong reminder of the disparity on global warming within, not only evangelicals, but the entire Christian body.
Given the contentious nature of the issue, a Southern Baptist representative warned Christian leaders to resist from using the Bible carelessly to support their views.
“To tie the authority of the Bible to the shifting and revisable scientific and public policy proposals of one’s global warming agenda is unhelpful to the debate at best and trivializing of Christian faith at worst,” advised Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The SBC is the nation’s largest protestant denomination with 16 million members and 42,000 churches.
“The SBC and other like-minded evangelical groups are not opposed to environmental protection,” explained Moore, who is the dean of SBTS’s school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration. “We are, however, concerned about the ways in which religious arguments are used in this debate, possibly with harmful consequences both for public policy and for the mission of the church.”
Moore affirmed that Southern Baptists do care about global warming “because the creation reveals the glory of God,” but that science does not absolutely support humans being the main cause for global warming and that cutting carbon emissions will be in the best interest for the majority of the world’s population.
Other religious leaders who spoke included the Rev. Dr. Jim Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and Rabbi David Saperstein, director and council of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.
Related articles:
Global Warming Gets Religion
Faith Leaders Debate Effects of Limits on Emissions
Religious leaders join climate debate
Religious leaders testify in Senate on warming
3. Global Warming as Religion and Not Science
by John Brignell
Brignell’s article is fascinating. He is definitely not a believing Christian or Jew; indeed, he rejects religion outright and defines faith as belief without evidence (contrary to Hebrews 11:1 and the definition of faith defended by Christian philosopher Gordon H. Clark as “voluntary assent to an understood proposition”; see Clark’s Faith and Saving Faith or What Is Saving Faith?). But his description of the sort of religion that global warming alarmism is fits perfectly the highly subjective, relativist, experientialist “religion” that came to predominate even in Christian circles from and after existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard--a leap into the dark without or, all the better, contrary to evidence. All that Brignell finds objectionable as the religious qualities of global warming alarmism the Christian should find objectionable as well, not because it is religious but because it is religious in a way explicitly contrary to Christian doctrine.--ECB
4. G8 Summit, Designed to Breathe New Life into Kyoto Process, Has Seen It Expire
by Dominic Lawson
. . . . The British media seem to have developed a dangerously Eurocentric view of the global politics of climate change. Another headline, this time over a weekend article by the doyen of British environmentalist writers, Geoffrey Lean, declared: “The world must isolate Bush over climate change.” The truth, as has become clear during the course of the G8 summit at Heiligendamm, is that it is Bush who has isolated Europe over climate change. Canada, China and even Japan have shown enthusiasm for Bush’s proposal to bypass the UN and hold a series of multilateral meetings - to be convened by America - which would seek agreement on mutually acceptable targets for CO2 emission reductions.
This ambush, not so much a cold shower as a diplomatic drenching for the summit hostess, Angela Merkel, should have come as no surprise. For some time now, the Americans have involved the major CO2-emitting nations in negotiations quite separate from the Kyoto process. This negotiating process also has a name, rather less well known in this country: it is called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Essentially, it adopts the American idea of solutions relying on technology rather than taxes and carbon caps: new forms of energy efficiency, so-called “clean coal” and fuel cells are the sort of things the Asia-Pacific Partnership has been discussing. . . .
Yesterday’s G8 communiqué made no mention of a specific temperature target. It merely stated that the G8 “will consider seriously the proposal to halve emissions by 2050.” Yes, and every 1 January, I consider seriously going on a diet. If they don’t fall for that rubric, the European media will probably declare that Bush has “wrecked” the Kyoto process and bemoan the fact that there isn’t yet a Democrat in the White House. They seem to forget that the Senate voted 95 to 0 against ratifying Kyoto during the Clinton presidency. Nancy Pelosi, the new Democrat Speaker, travelled to Berlin just before the G8 summit, and while saying, “I hope the [US] administration will be open to listening to why it’s important to go forward, perhaps in a different way”, she studiously avoided endorsing Kyoto - to her hosts’ bitter disappointment.
The summit which was meant to breathe life into the Kyoto process has seen it expire. To adapt Monty Python: Frau Merkel resembles the stubborn pet shop keeper played by Michael Palin. This Kyoto process is no more. It has ceased to be. It’s expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.
Read the whole article here.
Read the G8 Summit’s Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, and Energy Security (PDF), paragraphs 40 and following, beginning on p. 13.
Related Commentary:
Vague G8 Means More Confusion for Green Business
by James Murray, BusinessGreen, 10 June 2007
I keep feeling like I should post something on this week’s “historic” G8 Summit and its agreement on climate change, but I’m trying hard to work out how a commitment to meet to discuss the issue at a later date with a view to considering, maybe a target for a “substantial” reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that might well be voluntary constitutes news. . . .
The Poor are Paying the Price for Climate and Energy Hysteria
by Jane Macartney in Beijing and Tim Reid in Washington, The Times, 12 June 2007
China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology.
Beijing’s move underlines concerns that ethanol production is driving up rapidly the costs of corn and grain. It appears to reflect a growing reality about food-based alternative fuel: it is far more expensive both economically and environmentally, than Western politicians are likely to admit. . . .
5. Bush 1, Greens 0
by Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, June 8, 2007
Just call him George W. Bush, star international diplomat. Don’t snicker, don’t spit out your coffee. Instead, read over the final document on climate change released yesterday by the Group of Eight.
Yes, it’s a major shift in how the world will address the supposed threat of global warming. It’s also largely the vision put forth years ago by none other than George W. Bush -- that international cowboy -- even if few European politicians will admit it.
Don’t expect anyone to admit it. When Mr. Bush unveiled his new climate framework last week, calling on the world’s powers to reduce greenhouse emissions, it was portrayed as a capitulation. He’d removed the last “obstacle” to world unity on this issue, and seen the error of his ways. At this week’s Democratic presidential debate, every candidate vowed to fix the damage Mr. Bush had done to America ' s international reputation, his Kyoto failure the obvious example.
There’s been a capitulation on global warming, but it hasn’t happened in the Oval Office. The Kyoto cheerleaders at the United Nations and the European Union are realizing their government-run experiment in climate control is a mess, one that’s incidentally failed to reduce carbon emissions. They’ve also understood that if they want the biggest players on board -- the U.S., China, India -- they need an approach that balances economic growth with feel-good environmentalism. Yesterday’s G-8 agreement acknowledged those realities and tolled Kyoto’s death knell. Mr. Bush, 1; sanctimonious greens, 0.
Not that the president’s handling of the climate issue has been stellar. The science of global warming is still unsettled, yet Mr. Bush in 2002 caved and laid out a voluntary emissions-reduction program. . . .
But compared to Kyoto , Mr. Bush’s vision has been sublime. The basic Kyoto philosophy is this: Set ever lower mandatory targets, ratcheting down energy use, and by extension economic growth. The program was viewed by environmentalists and politicians as a convenient excuse for getting rid of unpopular fossil fuels, such as coal. In Kyoto-world, governments exist to create draconian rules, even if those dictates are disguised by “market” mechanisms such as cap-and-trade.
President Bush’s approach is opposite: Allow economies to grow, along the way inspiring new technologies and new forms of energy that lower C02 emissions. Implicit is that C02-control technologies should focus on energy sources we use today, including fossil fuels. In Bush-world, the government is there to incentivize industry, coordinate with it, and set broad goals.
Take your pick. Under the vaunted Kyoto, from 2000 to 2004, Europe managed to increase its emissions by 2.3 percentage points over 1995 to 2000. Only two countries are on track to meet targets. There’s rampant cheating, and endless stories of how select players are self-enriching off the government “market” in C02 credits. Meanwhile, in the U.S., under the president ' s oh-so-unserious plan, U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2004 were eight percentage points lower than in the prior period.
Europeans may be slow, but they aren’t silly, and they’ve quietly come around to some of Mr. Bush’s views. . . .
Then there’s Mr. Bush’s insistence that any “global” program must include big emitters such as China and India (Kyoto doesn’t). Though it received little press, the U.S. in 2005 started the Asia-Pacific Partnership, a voluntary climate pact between it and Australia, Japan, South Korea, China and India. Unlike Kyoto -- in which a government sets a national target for emissions, and then forces a few unlucky industries to make cuts -- the Partnership gets industry execs from every sector across the table from relevant government ministers, and devises practical approaches to reductions. This parallel diplomatic approach has proved far more acceptable to countries like China , and played a role in that country’s own recently released climate plan. . . .
Yesterday’s declaration, far from mandatory targets, instead sets a “global goal” of halving emissions by 2050. It invites the “major emerging economies” to join in this endeavor. It acknowledges that different approaches across the world can “coordinate rather than compete.” It reports that “technology is a key to mastering climate change” and lauds government “incentives.” It admits that “over the next 25 years, fossil fuels will remain the world ' s dominant source of energy,” and talks up the “peaceful use of nuclear energy.” It even explains that any program “must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies.” Close your eyes, and you might think this was President Bush in the Rose Garden. . . .
Read the whole article here.
Related articles:
China, India reject G8 climate change deal
G8 can’t impose climate targets on India: PM
China, India insist climate change solution lies in the West
UN: Challenge is how to include China and India
Bush has taken on Europe’s role as a Green champion
by Benny Peiser
When the history of Europe’s waning pre-eminence and the rise of Asia’s new superpowers is written, the German G8 summit that has just ended in the Baltic seaside town of Heiligendamm will be regarded as a momentous turning point. It will also be seen as the moment when the Western powers decided to bury their hatchets over Kyoto and start exerting pressure on their Asian challengers.
The failure of Germany and its European Union partners to push through their key goals stands for a diplomatic defeat that epitomizes Europe’s shrinking influence in international climate negotiations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had set three ambitious climate goals for the G8 summit. She wanted to sway the United States and other G8 countries to commit to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. She also wanted them to limit the world’s temperature rise to 2C and to increase fuel efficiency by 20%. In the end, not one these targets was accepted by her non-EU partners.
German and European diplomats were taken aback during the negotiations inthe run-up to the summit; not only the United States, but Japan, Canada and even Russia opposed Europe’s concept of unilateral G8 targets. Germany’s original plan, to push for ambitious goals with the aim of isolating President George W. Bush, fell short as even China and India came out against the idea of mandatory emission caps. . . .
. . . The actual deal agreed to at the G8 climate summit is broadly based on the U.S.- and Canadian-backed climate plan presented by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. In early May, Abe officially announced that he had obtained Mr. Bush’s support for his new climate policy. At the G8 summit, they would seek an international consensus for an action plan proposing global steps aimed at halving greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 from current levels.
One catch: The U.S.-Japanese plan, now adopted by the G8, also agreed that any effective international framework on climate change must include China, India and other major greenhouse-gas emitters from the developing world. In other words, G8 countries are willing “to consider” reducing emissions in 2050 by 50% so long as all major emitters join in that target. Crucially, by offering a deal to cut global CO2 emissions by half, not just those of a handful of richer nations, the G8 has shifted international pressure away from the West and on to China and India. . . .
“Nothing is going to happen in terms of substantial reduction unless China and India participate,” Mr. Bush said . . . .
For the time being, the climate agreement by the G8 summit creates an intractable impasse that is almost insurmountable in the short term. For too long, the climate-change debate has been overheated. At times, it looked almost unstoppable, like a runaway train in the movies. Like in the movies, the runaway train has crashed into the buffers of the hard reality of economic and political constraints. The lack of a practical short-term solution to the climate impasse means that policymakers should begin to tone down the hype and prepare citizens for the long haul. The time has come for cooler heads.
Read the whole article at here.
Comment: The two articles linked just above this one report that China and India refuse to jeopardize their economic development by committing to major CO2 emission reductions. That implies two things: (1) They (and other poor, developing countries) recognize, as the Cornwall Alliance has insisted all along, that major CO2 emission reductions can be accomplished only at the price of slowing economic development, which will harm the poor far more than global warming. As Peiser wrote, “in the absence of alternative energy technologies [China] simply cannot survive any caps, which would inevitably stifle economic growth, thus putting the country at risk of social unrest and upheaval. As we put it in ”A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming" (PDF), p. 16, a year ago:
Brazil, China, India, and other developing countries have a duty, as governments responsible for the well-being of their people, to promote and facilitate energy and economic development, and greater prosperity and hope, for their people. Poor countries have every right to develop their economies, ultimately creating greater environmental awareness and reaching an improved economic and technological ability to achieve greater energy efficiency, pollution control, and environmental improvement. Similarly, developed nations have a duty to refrain from imposing restrictions that would make it harder for them to do so. Only in this way can both human and ecological goals be met.
(2) Since without participation in emissions reductions by major emitters in the developing world there is no way the reductions will have any significant impact on future temperatures, mitigation of global warming falls off the table, and attention must go to adaptation, again as the Cornwall Alliance has insisted. To quote again from the “Call to Truth,” p. 16:
the most prudent response is not to try (almost certainly unsuccessfully and at enormous cost) to prevent or reduce whatever slight warming might really occur. It is instead to prepare to adapt by fostering means that will effectively protect humanity–especially the poor–not only from whatever harms might be anticipated from global warming but also from harms that might be fostered by other types of catastrophes, natural or manmade.
In short, Kyoto is dead, and so is any other attempt to reduce future warming. Adaptation through economic development is now the name of the game.
Looking to the future, we can now expect increasing pressure from environmental advocacy groups as well as developed countries’ governments and international organizations on China, India, and other developing nations to capitulate and make CO2 reductions a higher priority than economic development. The governments of those countries would be foolish to bend to the pressure, and Cornwall will argue against that move just as we have argued against Kyoto.--ECB
6. Green Doom-Mongers are Traumatizing Children
Australian Childhood Foundation, 11 June 2007
New study shows children fear environmental disaster
A report released today by the Australian Childhood Foundation, in the lead up to their annual fundraiser Childhood Hero Day Thursday 14 June, has revealed that Australian children are deeply concerned about the state of the environment and the impact of climate change.
The report, ‘Children’s fears, hopes and heroes - Modern Childhood in Australia’, surveyed 600 10-14 year-olds across Australia and revealed that:
52% are scared that there will not be enough water in the future
44% of children are worried about the impact of climate change
* 43% of children are worried about the pollution in the air and water
Dr Joe Tucci, CEO of the Australian Childhood Foundation, said “Children’s sense of their place in the world is under threat. Children are nervous about global problems and the implications for the future they are faced with. . . .”
Read the full article (PDF).
Comment: What makes this particularly sad is that the doom-and-gloom is so unrealistic. The trends on all kinds of environmental matters are definitely for the better, as Bjorn Lomborg demonstrated with overwhelming empirical evidence in The Skeptical Environmentalist several years ago. More important, the underlying factors driving the trends are now pretty well understood, and they boil down to this: growing wealth enables societies to solve environmental problems. For powerful explanation and demonstration of that, see Indur M. Goklany’s just-released The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. --ECB
7. Leftist Nation Shoots Down Global Warming Alarmism in “Dissidents Against Dogma”
by Alexander Cockburn, The Nation, posted June 7, 2007 (for June 25, 2007, print issue)
We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as “the mainstream theory” of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naively conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.
Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the cold war, in concert with the arms industry. There’s money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, “Enrich yourselves!”
The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists--people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly skeptical.
Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his critiques of ice-core data. He’s devastating on the IPCC rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years. In his 1997 paper in the Spring 21st Century Science and Technology, he demolishes this proposition.
Or take Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. He says we’re on a warming trend but that humans have little to do with it, the agent being a longtime change in the sun’s heat. He says solar irradiance will fall within the next few years and we may face the beginning of an ice age. The Russian scientific establishment gave him a green light to use the nation’s space station to measure global cooling.
Now read Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, applied physicist and engineer, retired from California’s academic and corporate sectors, who provides an elegant demonstration of how the CO2 solubility pump in the Earth’s oceans controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the consequence of temperature increase, not the cause.
Move to that bane of the fearmongers, Dr. Patrick Michaels, on sabbatical from the University of Virginia, now at the Cato Institute, who has presented in papers and recently his book Meltdown demolitions of almost every claim made by the greenhousers, particularly regarding hurricanes, tornadoes, sea rise, disappearing ice caps, drought and floods. Michaels is often slammed as a hired gun for the fossil fuel industry, but I haven’t seen significant dents made in his scientific critiques.
One of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective comes from Denis Rancourt, . . .
. . . . If the public swallows this new greenhouse dogma, it won’t just be carbon taxes on an airline ticket. It will be huge new carbon offset charges for the alleged carbon savings of the immensely expensive nuclear plants they’re so eager to build to give a cooler, cleaner world to your grandchildren.
Read the whole article here (subscription).
8. Comet Theory Undermines Climate Theory (Both are Doggy Anyway)
by Dennis Avery, American Daily, 8 June 2007
. . . another big chunk of the “evidence” for man-made global warming suddenly disappeared. Poof! Researchers just reported that the world’s most recent case of “abrupt climate change” - which occurred a mere 12,000 years ago - was probably due to a comet strike, not to “climate sensitivity.”
The Younger Dryas occurred as an Ice Age was ending. As the climate began to warm, a huge and sudden rush of fresh meltwater broke out from the Great Lakes and swept out to sea. The water surge was monumental enough that the meltwater lowered the salinity of the ocean, shut down the Atlantic conveyor currents, which disperse the planet’s heat, and threw the northern hemisphere back into another thousand years of Ice Age. It raised temperatures near Greenland by a startling 15 degrees C, even as it doubled annual rainfall.
Modern climatologists have savored the Younger Dryas event as massive evidence of what comes when we push the planet’s climate too close to a “tipping point.” Further human-driven warming, they say, will make such abrupt climate changes more likely, with searing droughts, torrential rainfall, and extreme heat. . . .
At least, that’s what the experts said until the latest meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Acapulco on May 23rd when James Kennett of the University of California/Santa Barbara presented evidence of a dramatically different cause for the Younger Dryas event: a comet that struck somewhere near the Great Lakes. . . .
Read the whole article here.
9. Top Scientist Says Biofuels Are Scam
by Jonathan Leake and Steven Swinford, The Sunday Times, 10 June 2007
THE government’s policy of promoting biofuels for transport will come under harsh attack this week from one of its senior science advisers.
Roland Clift will tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants is a “scam”. . . .
10. Israeli Scientists Turn Dew Into Clean Water
by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, The Jerusalem Post, 10 June 2007
A low-tech way to turn dew into fresh, usable water has been developed by two architects at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
Inspired by the dew-collecting properties of leaves, the invention can extract a minimum of 48 liters of fresh water from the air each day.
Depending on the number of collectors used, an unlimited daily supply of water could be produced even in remote and polluted places. Their invention recently won an international competition seeking to make clean, safe water available to millions around the world.
11. Briefly Noted
Remove Kilimanjaro glacier melt from global warming effects list.
Politics is corrupting science education.
Comments
#1 2007-06-19 09:38 (Reply)
Is there a way I can subscribe to the Cornwall Alliance’s newletter by email?