Posts tagged with: climate change

Cardinal Peter Turkson

Cardinal Peter Turkson

There has been much speculation regarding Pope Francis’ upcoming encyclical on ecology. Will he side with those who raise the alarm on climate change? Is he going to choose a moderate approach? Will the encyclical call for changes to help the poor?

Commonweal’s Michael Peppard seems to think Cardinal Peter Turkson, the Ghanaian prelate and President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has lifted the curtain on the pope’s upcoming encyclical. Cardinal Turkson gave a lecture last week, entitled, “Integral ecology and the horizon of hope: concern for the poor and for creation in the ministry of Pope Francis” which seemed to do more than simply hint at the themes of the ecology encyclical. As Peppard said, Cardinal Turkson “might well have titled it, An outline of the Pope’s forthcoming encyclical.” (more…)

On February 7th, Christopher Booker of Britain’s The Telegraph caused a stir with his column entitled “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever.” Booker remarked:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

This morning, Jordan Ballor – Acton Institute Research Fellow and Executive Editor of the Journal of Markets and Morality – spoke with Austin Hill on Faith Radio’s Austin Hill in the Morning show to discuss this allegation and other questions that have been raised about the truthfulness of scientists in this and other fields. You can listen to the interview via the audio player below.

SCLCLast June the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule change on carbon-dioxide emissions that would affect energy producers, especially in states that rely on coal-fired power plants.

The change is being sold as an attempt to curb global warming, though even it’s supporters grudgingly admit it won’t have much, if any, effect. The change is so small—equivalent to a roughly 6 percent cut in overall US emissions, a 1 percent cut in total global emissions—that’s it’s impact may not even be measurable.

One impact that can be measured, though, is the increase in average monthly electricity bills that will be caused by the change. Depending on who you ask, the increase could be anywhere from 6-7 percent (EPA estimates) to 80 percent (National Mining Association estimates).

While all Americans will be impacted by the increase, our most vulnerable neighbors—the poor, the sick, the mentally ill—will be most affected. As civil rights leader Charles Steele, Jr., president and CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says, Christians should find increased energy costs due to this regulation deeply troubling:

(more…)

SMkeepcalmWe know about climate change and global warming, right? After all, we’ve been talking about it for decades. The polar bears losing their homes, the wild swings in temperatures, too much snow, not enough rain, etc. But what do we really know?

That’s the question Phil Lawler asks. He thought he knew about climate change as well. But now he is convinced that what we are talking about when we talk about climate change has shifted from being a scientific issue to being a political one.

Consider how many newspaper editorials have been written about climate change—by journalists no more familiar with the science than I am. Rather than allowing the scientists to settle their disputes in the proper way, by conducting careful experiments and publishing arguments in peer-reviewed journals, political leaders have leapt into the fray. Despite his own obvious lack of credentials, President Obama has denounced some participants in the scientific debate. Former Vice President Al Gore has set himself as an expert on the subject, jetting constantly around the world to scold people who consume fossil fuels. (more…)

Actress-Journalist America Ferrera

Actress-Journalist America Ferrera

A bit of honesty, please. The premium network Showtime is airing an original series, The Years of Living Dangerously, which pits such intrepid reporters as Hollywood B-list hotties Jessica Alba, Olivia Munn and America Ferrera against climate-change “deniers.” The May 19 episode featured Ms. Ferrera attempting to grill The Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (full disclosure: Taylor is a professional colleague and cigar buddy) on his efforts to roll back renewable energy standards on a state-by-state basis. On this, more below.

In the meantime, clergy, nuns and other religious shareholders are rending their respective garments over lobbying and political contributions performed by companies in which they invest. Never mind the religious shareholders directly benefit from corporate lobbying and political donations, what really matters to them is whether the companies’ efforts kowtow to the progressive agenda.

Witness the following religious groups and their 2014 shareholder resolutions submitted to the following companies: (more…)

Perhaps nothing invigorates the left more than climate change and the exercise of free speech in the political arena – imagine their combined dyspepsia when these two issues converge. This is what is occurring with regrettable frequency as Walden Asset Management, Ceres and the Interfaith Council on Corporate Relations have joined a rogue’s gallery of progressive organizations issuing proxy shareholder resolutions urging a variety of companies to disassociate from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

On June 25, Ernst & Young issued a report titled “Key Developments of the 2013 Proxy Season.” The document states: “Shareholder influence in the boardroom is growing. Investors are using proxy voting and shareholder proposals to challenge a wide spectrum of corporate governance practices – from board diversity, to focus on environmental topics, to transparency around political spending.”

We know from previous reports these past few months that many religious investment groups have mounted the barricades of proxy investment activism to forward progressive causes. And their fingerprints smudge the resolutions submitted to businesses to further agendas far removed from spiritual faith whilst wedded to the latest causes celebre of the left, including eliminating corporate funding of ALEC. (more…)

climate-changeDo you believe that Jesus will return to Earth someday? Then you probably don’t care about environmental devastation and the catastrophic loss of life of future generations.

That’s the absurd conclusion drawn in an academic paper published in the latest issue of Political Research Quarterly. In their article, “End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change,” David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado test the following hypothesis:

Citizens who believe in Christian end-times theology are less likely to see global warming as a policy problem that requires immediate government action, compared to citizens who do not hold end-times beliefs.

Initially, I thought by “Christian end-times theology” they might be referring to premillinial dispensationalism, a eschatological view held by many American Evangelicals, that was popularized in the Left Behind series of novels. But the authors make it clear that they are not just referring to dispensationalists but to all Christians who believe in the Second Coming.
(more…)

Or at least that is what some House Democrats claim. Despite the fact that scientists have yet to conclude that climate change due to human impact on the environment is a proven reality, these Democrats are convinced that it not only exists, it forces women into prostitution. mumbai

David Harsanyi at Human Events has this to say:

[N]othing causes more transactional sex than poverty, and few conditions bring more poverty to women around the world than limiting capitalism and free trade. One wonders if a poor woman in say, Bangladesh, would be happier and healthier with a car, an air conditioner and processed food rather than that light carbon footprint they now carry? I wish they had a choice.

It is difficult to imagine that driving rain, warmer weather or an ice storm would force a woman into prostitution. It is poverty that provokes women and families to make desperate choices. It is also the increase in human-trafficking, one of the most lucrative forms of criminal activity world-wide. The Guardian illustrates: (more…)

It often comes to light over matters of disagreement that one side attempts to shut down the debate by emulating Ring Lardner’s father in The Young Immigrants: “’Shut up,’ he explained.” Of course, this isn’t at all a real explanation, but it sure does slam the door on any further discussion.

This disingenuous tactic is witnessed again and again in the climate-change debate. Most notably it appears in the tactics of those who believe the science is settled, a scientific consensus exists and global warming indeed poses a serious catastrophic threat to our planet – as evidenced by a March 7, 2013, webinar conducted by As You Sow for proxy shareholder resolutions.

As You Sow – which says 18 percent of its members are faith-based organizations – seeks to prompt corporate boards in which it owns stock to adopt its view of climate change. One method to achieve this goal is shutting down the debate completely. As noted in its 2013 “Proxy Preview,” AYS and a “very broad coalition of investors is continuing a vigorous initiative to make companies be more transparent about how they spend corporate treasury money on political campaigns and lobbying.” (more…)

I belong to the Christian Reformed Church, and our synod this year decided to formally adopt a report and statements related to creation care and specifically to climate change. I noted this at the time, and that one of the delegates admitted, “I’m a skeptic on much of this.”

He continued to wonder, “But how will doing this hurt? What if we find out in 30 years that numbers (on climate change) don’t pan out? We will have lost nothing, and we’ll have a cleaner place to live. But if they are right, we could lose everything.”

Over at Think Christian today, I reflect on the delegate’s question and try to begin to answer it in “Climate change and the church.” I do so primarily by attempting to inject the idea of opportunity cost into the discussion about climate change and specifically ecclesial responses.

This recognition of opportunity cost is closely identified with a central insight of economics, and it is informative to see how natural scientists and social scientists, like economists, approach the question of climate change. It’s also intriguing to see whether and how these two different groups are given platforms to speak to (and sometimes for) the church. Robert Murphy has a lengthy and worthy entrance into this broader discussion, which includes this critical observation about the insights of economists on the climate question:

The general public has no idea that the “consensus” (if we wish to use such terminology) of economic studies shows net benefits from anthropogenic climate change for decades.

Are the conclusions of such economic studies relevant to the question of how churches, groups of Christians, and individuals address the question of climate change? I submit that they are. And I also submit that Murphy’s general conclusion should chasten the confidence with which non-experts (which includes nearly everyone involved in church leadership) engage these issues:

The scientific modeling of climate change, and its possible impacts on human welfare, are very technical areas requiring years of study to master. When experts try to summarize the fields for the layperson, they sometimes present matters in misleading ways, however inadvertent.