In preparation for the G8 summit in Japan in July, the Catholic bishops’ conferences of the respective G8 nations have collaborated and released a joint statement to their political leaders. I mean to diminish neither the importance of the topics addressed nor the respect due to the bishops’ teaching by saying that such statements are usually rather bland and predictable. This one, however, contains some interesting language concerning, in particular, global warming. “We urge you,” the bishops exhort, “to deepen your commitments and actions to reduce global poverty and address global climate change.”
And later, this:
The costs of initiatives to prevent and adapt to the harmful consequences of climate change should be borne more by richer persons and nations who have benefited most from the emissions that have fueled development and should not unduly burden the poor.
At the risk of reading too much into this language (one must assume, after all, that it was carefully chosen), consider the terminology: “reduce” poverty, “address” climate change. Not “stop” climate change, or even “reduce” it, but “address” it. Combine that formulation with the later passage concerning the consequences of climate change for the poor. Admittedly, this could be read in several ways, but one possible way to read it is this: If rich nations are going to take measures to address climate change that have economic costs, rich nations need to bear those costs, not impose them on other nations.
In sum, although the statement devotes much space to the issue of climate change—which is comprehensible in light of its importance as a topic for the G8—the emphasis is almost exlusively on climate change’s impact on the poor, including the impact on the poor of efforts to stem climate change. In light of the ongoing debate about what the effects of climate change will be (good or bad) as well as whether human action can significantly influence it one way or the other, this seems to me exactly the right approach to take.
It has also to be noted, however, that the bishops continue to press for increased foreign aid to developed nations. Made in the context of the G8, one must assume this means government aid. It is too bad that they do not display some awareness of the increasing evidence that government aid has been largely ineffective (arguably, counterproductive) in this cause. To their credit, they do stress that “the poor must be empowered to be drivers of their own development.” Wouldn’t it be refreshing if they also said something along these lines?:
“We urge the governments of the wealthy nations to promote the development of poorer nations by taking the following measures: 1) refuse to dispense aid to or through any government or agency that has a record of corruption; 2) foster the activity of private foreign aid agencies through deregulation and tax benefits; 3) abolish tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies to domestic production.”
NASA Scientist and chief global warming “consensus” cheerleader James Hansen testified before Congress yesterday that the chief executives of oil companies should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity for spreading doubt about global warming.
Pardon me while I consult Wikipedia for a moment:
In international law, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.
The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity “are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”
Once again, here’s the opening sentence of this post: NASA Scientist and chief global warming “consensus” cheerleader James Hansen testified before Congress yesterday that the chief executives of oil companies should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity for spreading doubt about global warming.
I hereby propose that James Hansen be prosecuted for high crimes against reasonableness, perspective, and good sense for making such a ridiculous statement.
Of course, this isn’t the first time that a prominent global warming alarmist has proposed strengthening the global warming “consensus” by throwing those who would dare to question it in prison. The last time I noted such a proposal here on the PowerBlog, it was from Canadian scientist David Suzuki, and was immediately walked back by a spokesman who said that the statement was not meant to be taken literally. I’d guess that the same is true of Hansen in this case, although it should be noted Hansen isn’t known for being overly charitable to his critics, even when it turns out that they’re correct. Nor does he seem very interested in allowing people to check his results. Click here and scroll to get a sense of how difficult it is to figure out exactly how Hansen’s formulas for determining historical temperatures actually work.
One final note – “Satellite measured global temperature trend from the University of Alabama, Huntsville shows that it is cooler now than when he made his testimony in 1988.”
Update: Here’s a worthwhile read that asks some good questions about the accuracy of NASA’s thermometer:
…whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world’s leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore’s primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can’t help but make us consider Einstein’s advice:
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”
What’s more fun than a web poll? Answer: Lots of stuff. But that doesn’t mean web polls aren’t fun. So head over to NewsBusters and vote in theirs…
Thanks to Web-Genius and Photoshop King Jonathan Spalink for the snazzy new GWCA logo!
Submitted for your consideration:
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.
The author of this story is Phil Chapman, a geophysicist, astronautical engineer, and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, just in case you were wondering. No word on whether he’s picked up his briefcase full of cash from Exxon yet or not. Perhaps our local independent media can do some checking on that…
All that stuff we’ve heard about global warming being unquestionably responsible for more frequent devastating hurricanes? About how the devastation we saw after Hurricane Katrina would soon be the norm? Yeah, not so much:
One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.
The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this week unveiled a novel technique for predicting hurricane activity. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.
The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes.
Lessons to learn (again) from this:
- Our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere isn’t anywhere near complete.
- Therefore, the “consensus” that we often hear about on the potential effects of climate change isn’t necessarily correct.
- As such, we should be wary of those who propose drastic responses to a “crisis” that we simply do not fully understand.
Dr. Jay Richards has noted many times that there are four questions we should ask about climate change before we implement any policy in response to it. You can hear him talk about those questions next Thursday here in Grand Rapids. Check that link for more information.
Dr. Frank S. Page
President, Southern Baptist Convention
Mr. Richard Land
SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Pastor Jonathan Merritt
Cross Pointe Church
Brothers in Christ:
As a member in good standing of the Southern Baptist Church and a Christian who has through much prayer and Bible study come to acknowledge God’s desire that the church take seriously her role in stewardship of creation, I have been closely following the release of A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change and the Southern Baptist Convention’s reaction to it.
First let me say I respect the SBC’s right as an organization to issue public policy statements on the environment and climate change, even when these statements don’t always reflect my personal views. I appreciate many of the previous resolutions passed by the SBC urging stewardship of the earth’s resources while caring for the poor in developing countries.
I also appreciate that both the SBC and Pastor Merritt have formally stated our need as Baptists to fully engage in many areas of Christian environmental stewardship. Certainly these are tasks about which, through the power of Christ, God expects us all to be dilligent until His return.
I am concerned, however, that in the haste to distance the SBC from A Southern Baptist Declaration or the signers of their Declaration to distance themselves from the SBC you both are misrepresenting me and thousands of other Southern Baptists in two important areas.
First, there is the needless appearance of deep division. The messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, urged Southern Baptists to
"proceed cautiously in the human-induced global warming debate in light of conflicting scientific research."
"A Southern Baptist Declaration" says
We recognize that Christians are not united around either the scientific explanations for global warming or policies designed to slow it down…this is an issue where Christians may find themselves in justified disagreement about both the problem and its solutions. Yet, even in the absence of perfect knowledge or unanimity, we have to make informed decisions about the future.
Both resolutions suggest Southern Baptists move forward on ecology while respecting that there will inevitably be disagreement on the nature and extent of climate change.
The remedy for this should be obvious. We should not be afraid of tackling any social issue, including environmnental ones. And we must press forward and commit to praying for each other and for wisdom and unity within the body of Christ. This public and rather unseemly display is a foothold that the enemy of the church is happy to exploit. To that end I hope that you [and all those reading this letter. db] will join me in prayer this week, humbled by the fact that only God ultimately controls the affairs of His Creation.
Much more importantly, none of you seem concerned about the tragedy of missing our God-given opportunity here under the Great Commission. An editorial to the Tuscaloosa News by a Mr. James W. Anderson illustrates my point:
I urge the leadership of our Southern Baptist Convention to be about serving our member churches, evangelism and bringing lost souls to Christ. To those currently choosing to carry the liberal environmental torches, perhaps you should consider leaving the organization and entering politics. The two do not mix — at all!
Don’t let his confusion on the pedigree of the Declaration distract you from the real spiritual disaster. Mr. Anderson sees environmentalism as a hinderance to evangelism rather than an opportunity to establish relationships with, and bring the love of Christ to, vast numbers of God’s children who would never darken the door of a Baptist church.
The fact that he doesn’t apparently know about scriptures referencing God’s heart on ecology, doesn’t understand the role of creation in bringing glory to God, doesn’t see creation care as a mission field, doesn’t view climate change action opponents and proponents both as human beings in need of a Savior, and doesn’t think engaging in challenging environmental issues like climate change provide openings for the Gospel message to our generation is not his failing. Rather, it is a direct reflection on the historic failure of our Southern Baptist leadership and many of those in our pulpits to communicate a Spirit-filled, biblical message on creation care.
Rather than continue this division I urge you, therefor, to return your focus to the Lord of Creation. Join with me to pray for reconciliation, for wise yet diligent action, and for the earnest encouragement of pastors and their congregations to make stewardship of the environment as important a priority as stewardship of their missions budgets and church growth projects.
Thanks for your consideration.
Grace and peace,
[Don's other habitat is The Evangelical Ecologist]
“The challenge of climate change is at once individual, local, national and global. Accordingly, it urges a multilevel coordinated response, with mitigation and adaptation programs simultaneously individual, local, national and global in their vision and scope”, stated Archbishop Celestino Migliore, representative of the Holy See, at the 62nd session of the U.N. General Assembly, which took place earlier this month. The theme of the session was “Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and the World at Work.”
Much attention is being given to climate change in the wake of EU President Jose Manuel Barroso’s new climate control plan. President Barroso’s proposal, released in January, intends to control greenhouse gas emissions through heavy legislation. The “20/20/20 by 2020” goals are ambitious; cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, produce 20% of its energy from renewable sources, and increase energy efficiency by 20% no later than the year 2020. The EU intends to lead the way in implementing greener energy systems, despite the heavy criticism it has drawn from some of its chief member states, namely France and Germany.
Big business is getting in on the renewable energy bandwagon. General Motors, for example, has announced plans to design at least half their vehicles to run on ethanol.
Meanwhile, in the media reports keep coming concerning the uncertainty that biofuel hype is going to have the desired long-term effect for global warming. Experts argue that the production of biofuels may give off cleaner emissions, but will require more energy to manufacture. Economists are eyeing rising food prices -especially corn- with worry. Demonstrations over the price of staple foods in Mexico and Indonesia last summer were attributed to the U.S. trial in promoting ethanol at the gas pump.
The Vatican repeatedly affirms that man is responsible for the environment. “Consumers must be aware that their consumption patterns have direct impact on the health of the environment,” Archbishop Migliore said at the U.N. “Thus through interdependence, solidarity and accountability, individuals and nations together will be more able to balance the needs of sustainable development with those of good stewardship at every level.”
Nevertheless, responsibility towards the environment does not usurp responsibility towards one’s fellow man, and this is implicit in Archbishop Migliore’s address. While President Barroso and the EU, worry themselves about what to do with climate change, poor countries may be watching their daily bread disappear into gas tanks and industrial energy due to ill-advised legislation and propaganda. Lack of regard for scientific input and global economic effects is contemptible, no matter how officials may applaud their green conscience.
A Harvard Astrophysicist argues that global warming is more related to solar cycles than to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. QUICK! Someone find out how Exxon managed to buy her off!
In her lecture series, “Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change,” astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.
Dr. Baliunas’ work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what’s been widely publicized in the mainstream media.
Her research goes back to time periods when the amount of carbon emission was small enough that it wasn’t a major player.
I wonder if the same folks who think the earth has too many human beings (and wish for some sort of plague to rid the earth of many, if not all, of its human inhabitants) are celebrating the predictions that global warming “in the long term has the potential to kill everybody.”
It seems to me that truly misanthropic environmentalists might find themselves in the uncomfortable position of endorsing climate change, if it will rid the earth of the scourge of humanity.