As you may have heard, this past weekend the Green machine orchestrated its latest stunt, a global Earth Hour during which participants were asked to turn off all their lights.
In his post on the topic, Matthew made fun of the stunt pointing out that even the organizers admit that the act will do little for the environment but that the payoff would be in awareness. We here at CMR make a habit of mocking the Global Warming scare as unsupported by science, overblown in its conclusions, and potentially harmful to billions of living creatures – namely humans.
Whenever we write about this topic we invariably get emails or comments of the sort of “Why do you mock this so? As Catholics we must morally take care of the environment and even if we are not sure of the effects of human produced CO2 on the environment, why take chances? As Catholics we should support this movement.”
This is a paraphrase of the arguments put forth to us by well meaning Catholics confused by our opposition. We usually laugh off such critiques and questions but I felt that perhaps it requires more than mockery. Let me first stipulate that we absolutely consider ourselves to be Catholic conservationists dedicated to the good stewardship of our God given resources but we generally oppose the methods, tactics, and proposals of the Green Movement. Many assume that our opposition is a knee jerk opposition based on party loyalty and/or our disdain for the lefties who support it. This is emphatically not the case.
This post is not meant as a treatise on the evidence for or against anthropogenic climate change. We at CMR view the evidence as at best inconclusive. But does there exist a chance that humans contribute deleteriously to climate change? Yes, there is a chance, but there is no conclusive evidence that this is the case. Currently there seems to be more evidence to the contrary, but we will let the scientists work it out. What is clear is that supposed current ironclad case for anthropogenic climate change and its consequences is a lie and it is not a neutral act to believe a lie. In the real world believing a lie and acting upon that belief has real world consequences. Sometimes those consequences mean death for millions. This is not guess work, this is history.
History gives us a perfect example of what can happen when bad science is married with the cause-celeb and policy for a generation is built on a lie. In 1962 Rachel Carson wrote her (in)famous book Silent Spring which scaring the public with the horrors linked to the use of DDT.
DDT is an insecticide that up until that point had greatly reduced the incidences of hosts of diseases including yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice. Moreover, DDT was responsible for the near eradication of Malaria, a disease which up until that time had killed untold millions.
But the successes of DDT were no match for bad science married to celebrity endorsement. Over the course of a decade, the drum beat against DDT. Will little or no real science to back up their claims the same type of crowd that now drones on about global warming, raised the hue and cry over DDT. DDT was claimed to cause all kinds of terrible things to people and animals and plants. Of course all the studies making these claims used concentrations orders of magnitude higher than what was seen in real life. Never mind, they said. Why take chances? What if it does cause cancer or thinning of egg shells for migratory birds? Let’s ban it so we never have to find out. The very same logic that some people use in their support for draconian cutbacks in CO2.
But what happened when policy was formed on bad science? Millions, millions of people died from malaria and other mosquito born diseases. As consequence of believing a popular lie, millions of people died over decades from diseases that had already been nearly eradicated. This is not conjecture, most mainstream scientists now admit that the science did not support the wild claims made at the time. In fact, quite the opposite. The evidence shows that DDT is safe. Today DDT is slowly being reintroduced, but much institutional opposition remains and people continue to die.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is scant at best. Even if it does exist to some degree, the potential impact of this climate change is largely unknown. But the same logic of “why take chances?” is being used, even by Catholics, to support radical remedies for a potentially fictional disease. The remedies proposed for global climate change would severely limit progress in many developing nations keeping billions in poverty. This mandated poverty would, like the ban on DDT, kill millions. For some in the green movement this is an acceptable or even desirable outcome. As a Catholic, I know that it is not.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive defense of my position on climate change or the history around the banning of DDT, but rather a modest explanation to those who ask us “Why not act as if it true? Just in case.” When people ask me this I respond with what I said earlier, “It is not a neutral act to believe a lie. Believe a lie and millions might die.”
March 30, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“I can’t be wrong, you just suck” is not modesty.
Perhaps folks would respond more to your points if you’d responded to the points of the original post?
What good reason would anybody have to support lower CO2 emissions other than the genuine, albeit possibly false, belief that it is harming the environment in a way that puts economic “progress” above the proper care of Creation of which God has made us not only masters but also stewards
Power. Those who get to say what is “earth friendly” get to say what is not friendly.
There’s also the money angle– which might just be seen as an aspect of “power”– such as the “carbon offset” market.
Generally, the people saying “give me all this power, the world is at risk!” have a burden of proof.
What science? Show us this science.
At the risk of sounding childish: “after you.”
Something more than tweaked data and computer programs.
Once it’s been shown with reasonable assurance– say, one third as good at being predictive, even retroactively, as gravitational theory models?– that 1) the earth is warming, 2) it’s influenced by humans and 3) that influence is something that can, morally, be effected, THEN this debate can be restarted honestly.
All the economic prosperity in the world won’t do you a bit of good if you under 200 feet of water or experiencing high temperatures of 120 degrees every day in the summer.
Even catastrophic predictions — more so than the 2007 UN report– warn of a meter in the next 100 years.
Tens of meters possible somewhere in the future if changes aren’t made in the next 50 years.
Could return to Pleiocene levels of ocean, at roughly 100 feet.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5882235.ece
People are amazing– they can adapt to water rising at roughly the ten times the rate the Tower of Pisa is sinking.
Climate Progress.org doesn’t even think that “every day” would be 120 degrees– they warn of extreme temperatures of up to 122.
However, I have lived in places like that– I was stationed around Death Valley for a few years. We had thermometers crack from the combined heat of jet exhaust, blacktop and natural heat.
And still humans survive.
Fourthly, your statement that “believe a lie and millions might die” sounds very nice, but what could you possibly mean by this?
Exactly what he said?
Get rid of what we KNOW is working in favor of this Chicken Little plan, which we know will harm people, or try to get more information, demand more proof, despite the risk that thousands will be smashed by chunks of the sky?
Known evil, possible evil; seems like a pretty clear option to me.
Now go ahead, Patrick: quote Flannery O’Connor again and tell me how I’m just a kid who doesn’t know anything…
No need, when you say it so well yourself.
March 30, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Foxfier,
Thank you for engaging. It took a bit of coaxing, but somebody finally caved and responded like a normal human being. You make some good points.
So listen, I’m not an expert on global warming and I don’t pretend to be. I am, as I’ve said from the beginning, not trying to make a case for global warming because that isn’t my job, nor do I very much care. What does concern me very gravely, however, is when conservative Catholics (among whom I like to count myself) such as Patrick and Matthew here start taking an issue over which there is legitimate scientific debate and cast it as a massive liberal conspiracy. Why do I worry about such a thing? Because I see such attitudes toward this issue among many devout and conservative Catholics not too much unlike myself and I start to think whether people are getting too wrapped up in their own ideology to see the obvious anymore. Not the obviousness of global warming, but rather simply the obviousness that those who believe global warming are honest, well-intentioned people like ourselves who simply disagree with us. I worry because it is always bad news to see a group of people with whom I share so many core beliefs go down the route of demonizing people who disagree with them over an issue on which there is room for civil disagreement.
There are so many issues today on which Catholics can not give an inch: abortion, gay “marriage”, euthanasia, etc… This is not one of them, and it is scary to see the lengths to which some of us will go to ridicule and demean people who seriously believe that we may be doing irreparable harm to the planet, not because the planet itself is worthy saving in and of itself as so many of you are accusing these people of proposing, but because the planet is where we live. Harm come to the Earth is harm come to humanity. Do you understand that? Most of these people aren’t worried about global warming because they are concerned about saving the planet; they are concerned about saving man from himself. Of course every movement has its kooks, but that doesn’t change the core message which is simply is to simply stop making a mess in our only home. And there can be no doubt that we are making a mess, whether that mess is causing climate change or not. Try breathing in a major city for a couple minutes and you will see what I mean.
As for economics, developing nations where people could face a deadly threat from CO2 restrictions aren’t the problem. They aren’t the countries that need CO2 restrictions. It is developed countries like the United State and the nations of Europe where CO2 restrictions are needed. The best policy here is for countries to make the the switch to cleaner fuels as soon as they are able to do so without causing widespread poverty or famine. Thus, developed countries like the United States should start now, (as we are) and then help developing countries make the the switch without causing undue economic stress upon their citizens.
I really do hate to pull this card, but it is also worth noting that the Holy Father agrees with me and not you. Oh, yes I did. 😉
~cmpt
March 30, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Let’s pretend I spent about ten minutes here insulting and picking out the logical fallacies you deploy, since “rude” seems to be the only constant you bow to and I don’t want to be bothered by wasting the time– especially since you’ll ignore anything that might improve your ability to argue reasonably, but hurt your “style.”
There were Socialists who honestly did– and do– believe that their theft and mass starvations were all in the best interest of “the workers.”
There are many, many people who believe that wiping out a large portion of humanity is in the best interest of the Human race– some prefer by dying off, some have a more pro-active approach.
Many abortion advocates believe it’s the best option for women.
“Death with Dignity” is a direct argument that it’s the “best” way to end suffering.
To call back to the original post, the DDT ban which has resulted in uncounted deaths was done all with the best of intentions.
You’ll need a much stronger argument than “but so much could go wrong!” and “they mean well” or “but if we don’t act, children could suffer!” Oh, also “but Catholics already have to counter so very much!”
Those all sound like arguments I’ve heard from Catholics that support birth control– especially the last one. Interesting conjunction– doesn’t carry any weight, but it is interesting that the justifications are so similar.
“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialog with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
That Pope?
Hm. I notice a notable lack of agreeing with you, and a great deal of agreeing with the OP’s point of sound science being needed, Henny Penny.
March 30, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Foxfier,
“It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialog with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”
Yes, that Pope, who says we should “aim” to “reach… sustainable development” and “respect environmental balances.” His statement is precisely my own. It is almost everything that I am saying, right there in a single paragraph. I think we are done, unless you are going to now speak against the Supreme Pontiff, which you are of course at liberty to do.
~cmpt
March 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Elizabeth,
Thanks for your candor but I would really like to know where Patrick and Energy Guy, who boast so strongly of their school, went. I notice I haven’t heard from either of them since I asked them for names and degrees. Thanks again, and of course MIT is a most excellent institution, especially for engineering. You are clearly a scholar of the very first class.
~cmpt
March 30, 2009 at 8:46 pm
CMTP,
I know you’re anxious about this, christopher. But Patrick’s on an airplane so I’m responding for him. It seems to me that Patrick didn’t boast of his school, he just poked a little fun at yours.
(See Patrick’s original comment about reading comprehension. Pat assured me he has great respect for Villanova. It was his “safety” school.)
March 30, 2009 at 9:05 pm
CMTP, I find it ironic that you complain of nobody engaging you on the issues, and then when Foxfier did you immediately disavow any expertise in the field and talk instead about the ideology of conservative bloggers.
So which is it? Do you accept the global warming (er…”global climate change”, as if climate has ever been static) as has been presented by the more vocal alarmists? Or are you concerned that people are forming uninformed opinions about global warming? Or is it uninformed opposition to the concept? Or is it the energy used by people when discussing this topic, which could be better directed elsewhere? (A concept with which I disagree, since I’m capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time.)
Oh, and for the record, I have no higher education degree (colleges and I don’t mix well…), just an analytical mind and a voracious appetite for information. I do better at independent study rather than in a formal classroom setting. The last place I went was Oakland University in Michigan in the computer science program, but that was 12 years ago (egad, I’m getting old!)
March 30, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Er…one other thing. Your first post, first point: The title doesn’t assume that people believing a lie know it is a lie. Some people know it’s a lie (or could be a lie), but others are surely acting in good faith, albeit misdirected.
Second point: When there are competing scientific theories out there, the solution is not to take a poll. If you can’t find the writings of climate change skeptics out there, you’re not looking hard enough.
Third point: Alarmists paint an extreme picture of what could happen, not what is likely to happen.
Fourth point: I thought it pretty obvious what he meant. Maybe I’m just a simpleton without a college degree, so I missed some level of nuance. But just like the believed lies about DDT led to bans of the substance, and millions have subsequently died from diseases that were on the verge of being eradicated, so too could an unintended consequence of believing a lie (“anthropogenic global warming is going to run out of control and destroy the world!!11!11! UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW!”) lead to the unnecessary death of millions by keeping them in poverty.
March 30, 2009 at 9:48 pm
MAtthew S. wrote: “The last place I went was Oakland University in Michigan in the computer science program, but that was 12 years ago (egad, I’m getting old!)”
You still in Michigan, or were you fortunate to get out?
March 30, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Christopher Christopher Christopher
“Thanks for your candor but I would really like to know where Patrick and Energy Guy, who boast so strongly of their school, went. I notice I haven’t heard from either of them since I asked them for names and degrees.”
I, of course, did no such thing.
As Matthew mentioned I was on an airplane all day so I didn’t have a chance to respond. Sorry to burst any illusions about me cowering somewhere to ashamed of my alma mater to show my face.
As for the rest of the points, many others have addressed the points that I would make so I won’t repeat them.
Let me say, however, that I believe I was plain in that I was addressing a rather narrow point, namely my response to the argument “Why not just pretend its real, just in case.”
I think this was rather clear, your protestations aside, since it seems most others understood the point.
Passion is a good thing Christopher, but when trying to make an argument, it can sometimes be unhelpful.
As for my knock on ‘Nova, it was just a joke and I hoped it would have been viewed as such. Alas and alack. It actually was my safety school, so if I got rejected from everywhere else I applied I might have gone there too.
March 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Matthew,
I disavowed any expertise because I am trying to draw a sharp distinction between disbelieving anthropogenic global warming and demonizing those who do believe in it. You will notice that none of my issues are the actual existence of global warming.
I have not formed an opinion on global warming, as to whether it is caused by man or not. I do know that such ridiculous insinuations as “global warming is bogus because it snowed on the day proponents of it were demonstrating” have been made not only on this site but on many others of a similar nature. I do know that a lot of people who aren’t scientists and have perhaps nothing more than their high school meteorology class to go by have dismissed out of hand the evidence presented by some of the most brilliant people on the planet. And these sorts of things scare me, because it makes me wonder whether they make such absurd claims in the defence of issues that I really care about as well. It makes me ponder the future of Catholic apologetics as a whole. So yes, Matthew, I am “concerned that people are forming uninformed opinions about global warming” and/or an “uninformed opposition to the concept.”
I am also worried about why people think the massive amount of pollution which we are imposing upon the planet is just dandy as long as it isn’t raising global temperatures; and by what people think we are to do for energy after the finite fossil fuels which we are currently using are completely consumed and we don’t haven’t funded the appropriate technologies to provide new fuels, because if anything is going to be an economic disaster, that will be it.
But mostly I am taken aback by the rather total lack of circumspect regard for the presumption that people who believe in anthropogenic global warming are acting in good faith, and therefore are not liars.
Matthew Archbold,
Tell Patrick that my grandparents didn’t go to college either and so he is in good company.
~cmpt
March 31, 2009 at 12:17 am
Christopher Michael
Believe a lie and millions die.
He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (Satan). Those who listen to him and believe his lies to be the truth bring death. They always have, ever since the garden of Eden.
How can you tell whether the people involved know it is a deliberate lie. Well, if an environmentalist believes that man is destroying planet Earth and there are too many people on the planet then he is telling lies. How do I know? because if he really believed what he says he would have killed himself. But no, it’s always someone else who is the problem. It’s always someone else who has to get off the planet. He hates his neighbour. If he loved his neighbour he’d top himself surely.
Look at the fueling of AIDs in Africa by condom promotion. I could just about accept that people without the understanding of Natural Law might make the mistake in thinking that condom promotion could stem the spread of AIDs in Africa. However, when live data comes through confirming again and again and again that condom promotion FUELS the spread of AIDS and those people keep pushing condoms then you must conclude that they are liars and murderers, since you know they are not that stupid surely.
From all the information I’ve seen, I am shocked but compelled to say that certain of our large institutional bodies desire the death of people. Are willing to fund death programs and diabolically dress them up as AID. Christopher, they truly believe they are doing the right thing. They think killing you is helping you. If you don’t believe me ask the aborted millions.
March 31, 2009 at 1:39 am
cmtp
“But mostly I am taken aback by the rather total lack of circumspect regard for the presumption that people who believe in anthropogenic global warming are acting in good faith, and therefore are not liars”
You are taken aback by a presumption that I did not make. Look again, Christopher. I never said that all those who believe in AGW are liars. Nope. Didn’t say that. While there are those who knowingly distort or exaggerate the “science” to support their doomsday inspired powergrab (those would be the liars), most people simply want to be good stewards. Confused by the outrageous claims made by some (the liars) the regular folks buy into it out of good, but ultimately misguided, motives.
Again, others picked up on this distinction so I am confident that my post was clear enough.
March 31, 2009 at 2:35 am
Patrick,
“You are taken aback by a presumption that I did not make. Look again, Christopher. I never said that all those who believe in AGW are liars. Nope. Didn’t say that. While there are those who knowingly distort or exaggerate the “science” to support their doomsday inspired powergrab (those would be the liars), most people simply want to be good stewards. Confused by the outrageous claims made by some (the liars) the regular folks buy into it out of good, but ultimately misguided, motives.”
Then we truly understand one another. Thank you; that is all.
~cmpt
March 31, 2009 at 11:35 am
Christopher,
I would like to address one small point.
In your post you claim that it’s the developed countries that “need restrictions” while developing countries can be left alone. Of course, this is standard boilerplate. It has two problems.
First, the reason it is proposed is to actually harm the economies of rich nations to reduced the power of their populations to fight totalitarianism.
Second, so called rich nations make more efficient use of energy and have dramatically lower emissions than developing countries. You’re young. At 44, I can tell you that air and water in the USA is much cleaner now than it was when I was in elementary school.
Global Warming is a money/power grabs by leftist elitists. The original green movement was backed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s in Western Europe to destroy capitalism.
Keith
Virginia Commonwealth University 1992 BS, Mathematics
University of Denver, 1999 MS Finance
Blessed John XXIII Seminary, 2012 MDiv.
March 31, 2009 at 1:10 pm
LarryD, still in MI, and my job (whole company, really) is about to disappear. Haven’t found a replacement job yet, but I don’t really want to move out of state since my kids will miss their extended family.
March 31, 2009 at 4:27 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 31, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Keith,
Hahahaha. Dude you can’t list degrees you haven’t actually been awarded yet.
Christopher
Harvard Ph.D., Environmental Science 2014
Cambridge Ph.D, Physics 2019