Is Global Warming a Sin?

[Voegelin]

The Nation
Alexander Cockburn

In a couple of hundred years historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached.

Then as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide. Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend . . .continued at The Nation magazine (subscription)

 

[kopilo]

The only way I know global warming can be considered a sin by a Christian is via the very beginning of Genesis. There is also a massive difference between an indulgence and 'carbon trading' that being even if you 'trade carbon' it doesn't make your actions exempt from persecution, especially by the Church or authors who like to try to join things together to persuade others to their cause.

 

[Voegelin]

There is also a massive difference between an indulgence and 'carbon trading' that being even if you 'trade carbon' it doesn't make your actions exempt from persecution . . .

True enough. Those dealing in carbon offsets are taking some heavy hits for being hypocrites. The life styles of Sheryl Crow, Laurie David, Al Gore,Ron Burkle, John Travolta and other Eco-Celebs are getting quite a bit of publicity.

Since no one is torturing or burning them at the stake (not yet at least) I don't know if "persecution" is the right word. Their sybaritic lifestyles continue in the manner to which they have been acclimated but the heat is, as you suggest, considerable.

 

[Lynden1000]

Personally I suspect that humans are indeed destroying the environment to some degree, although I don't know enough about the science behind global warming to comment. I try to leave that solely to scientists but, as with creation-evolution, there tends to be so much political noise in the fray and so many agendas being touted that it's hard for any reasonable person to find an objective source of information that gets past the polemics and down to the nitty gritty. As soon as you find a source that appears objective, someone will inevitably come along to inform you that the source is actually heavily biased and unreliable.

It's a loser's game.

 

[Voegelin]

As soon as you find a source that appears objective, someone will inevitably come along to inform you that the source is actually heavily biased and unreliable.

Consider this: Only Al Gore and his supporters in the media tell us the science is conclusive, the debate is over and we must take the action they want right not before it is too late. Many of those who support Al Gore have a financial stake in trading carbon credits or are corporations who see the steps Gore wants taken as giving them an edge on the competition.

On the other side you have a wide assortment of opinion and open debate. The OP is from the far left. The far right concurs and there are many in the middle of the political spectrum who do as well. So who is giving the straight story? Those who claim they know everything , who call those who do not agree "Global Warming deniers" or those who leave the matter up for further research?

Btw...notice how every proposal Al Gore and his supporters make just happens to mesh with their political ideology of centralized control of the economy? If steps must be taken, there are free market ways to achieve the same ends. Gore and his supporters will hear none of that. Right there I would think is a clue to what this is really all about.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

There was a post in the christian teens i read a number of days ago, apparently many dont believe global warming is much of an issue as the international research institutes say it is.

 

[kopilo]

Is the nautural occurance of Global warming a sin? How could it be? Is an unnatural occurance due to human intervention of Global Warming a sin? Possibly as according to the bible God told us to take care of the earth and the effect of an unnatural high Warming on a global scale could cause a lot of harm to the environment and thus earth.

 

[beechy]

Consider this: Only Al Gore and his supporters in the media tell us the science is conclusive, the debate is over and we must take the action they want right not before it is too late. Many of those who support Al Gore have a financial stake in trading carbon credits or are corporations who see the steps Gore wants taken as giving them an edge on the competition.

On the other side you have a wide assortment of opinion and open debate. The OP is from the far left. The far right concurs and there are many in the middle of the political spectrum who do as well. So who is giving the straight story? Those who claim they know everything , who call those who do not agree "Global Warming deniers" or those who leave the matter up for further research?

Btw...notice how every proposal Al Gore and his supporters make just happens to mesh with their political ideology of centralized control of the economy? If steps must be taken, there are free market ways to achieve the same ends. Gore and his supporters will hear none of that. Right there I would think is a clue to what this is really all about.

My uncle has a PhD in Climatology and Geography from a major research university. He is the director of a climate model program at a nationally renowned laboratory. He has been telling us kids for yeearrrsss that global warming is for real. And he's not running for office. And he doesn't have a tv show, or any real interest in media attention.

 

[Nithavela]

A sin? No you got that wrong, it's because of a lack of pirates.

 

[Voegelin]

My uncle has a PhD in Climatology and Geography from a major research university. He is the director of a climate model program at a nationally renowned laboratory. He has been telling us kids for yeearrrsss that global warming is for real. And he's not running for office. And he doesn't have a tv show, or any real interest in media attention.

So? Anyone can read a thermometer. Not many dispute the slight rise in global temperature over the last few decades.

That isn't the issue.

 

[kopilo]

So? Anyone can read a thermometer. Not many dispute the slight rise in global temperature over the last few decades.

That isn't the issue.

Given the present topic I don't think beechy meant natural warming.

 

[meebs]

My uncle has a PhD in Climatology and Geography from a major research university. He is the director of a climate model program at a nationally renowned laboratory. He has been telling us kids for yeearrrsss that global warming is for real. And he's not running for office. And he doesn't have a tv show, or any real interest in media attention.

Of course it's for real, well the average global temperature has been warming up since the last ice age.

And is global warming a sin? What a strange question

 

[TheReasoner]

I cannot believe how narrowminded some Americans are. Wether or not global warming can be caused by humans has been debated for decades. Even now, when there is overwhelming evidence that this may very well be the case it seems they are too darn comfortable to care. The rest of the world is hard at work trying to change, but they still refuse to even consider the option. Apparently the atmosphere (comparable to the layer of varnish on an 8 ball) is too large for us to have an effect. JUST like a lot of people said about the oceans, and the oceans are heavily polluted. We have had a huge effect on the oceans, and there is reason to believe we have also had huge effects on the atmosphere as well.
Is it so hard to believe? Look at London, the great smog killed tons of people. One can find traces of the pollution from Roman smithies and foundries in the glaciers in Norway, which was very far indeed from the Roman Empire's smithies.
Measurements show that the ash and other particles we spew out into the atmosphere has reduced the amount of sunilght hitting the ground by around 10% in the last 30 years. Yet we still experience a global environmental change which we call global warming. Are you saying we can be responsible for the one, but not the other?

Global warming in itself is no sin of course. But we may very well be guilty of creating the global warming we now face. And if that is so (which seems very likely) we have committed a grave sin indeed!
As the water levels rise we will not only see a massive change in marine biology, but as land is covered in water climate refugees will be a huge problem for all nations. I predict war over land mass. Some animals and plants will become extinct as their habitats vanish. And should the water ever recede, we will face an all-surrounding desert. Where the water has been the land will be dead.
The mongols spread salt in the fields of Arabs during their invasion. To this day this spells trouble for agriculture. As the salty seawater washes away nutritious soil and leaves sand, seashells and it's own salty contents, what do you think the effects will be?

We do not know for sure whether or not we do cause global warming. But there is a lot of evidence supporting that we do. It is a likely conclusion. And ignoring this could prove fatal.

 

[meebs]

We do not know for sure whether or not we do cause global warming. But there is a lot of evidence supporting that we do. It is a likely conclusion. And ignoring this could prove fatal.

You are right of course (but why does everyone constantly blame the Americans? we are responsible too!) in that whether its man made or not in cannot be ignored.

But consider this: The Earth has been around for over 4 billion years! Ever since it had its current type of atmosphere (which Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide content have fluctured) there has been climate change due to various factors, external and internal - in fact some scientists had documented severe quick climate changes. Humanity has only been round fo so long and we can only find evidence for so much. Saying that i'll use an example - the United Kingdom was once covered in trees. Now thats all gone People claim that trees dont have much to do with it but i suspect it doesnt help.

We cant change everything about this planet, well not yet - and when we do we will be in full charge and it will have lost its natural state anyway, in fact we are heading well for that.

Anyway - ive said all this before on other thread so i wont bother giving links this time. Besides the stuff you need is in scientific journals, which i cannot link you

 

[kopilo]

Of course it's for real, well the average global temperature has been warming up since the last ice age.

See post #11.

Apparently the atmosphere (comparable to the layer of varnish on an 8 ball) is too large for us to have an effect.

To this I say CFC and ozone depletion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.

I see this as a fantastic idea. It should help provide financial incentives to create efficient technologies that keep carbon emissions to reasonably low levels, and keep the hurdles low for new companies to enter the field and compete with the established ones. It is only bad if you think human beings should return to the Stone Age, or go extinct.

I'm still waiting for practical and affordable electric automobiles... if only so I don't have to smell the stink of car exhaust, or see black snow.

There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend

That isn't quite true, though one could argue that non-anthropogenic factors are more significant. For instance, the Sun seems to be making a significant contribution to global warming as well.

What I will agree with is that environmentalism seems to be a religion-substitute for many people. This is a disturbing trend, since environmentalism often trivializes human well-being or the need for technology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[meebs]

This is a disturbing trend, since environmentalism often trivializes human well-being or the need for technology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I see the advance of technology and engineering/civil engineering as a part of the solution.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I see the advance of technology and engineering/civil engineering as a part of the solution.

Yes, that sounds great. A Promethean (or "humanistic") environmentalism sounds great to me. As long as the main focus in on assuring human well-being, environmentalism need never become an evil to us.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TheReasoner]

You are right of course (but why does everyone constantly blame the Americans? we are responsible too!) in that whether its man made or not in cannot be ignored.

But consider this: The Earth has been around for over 4 billion years! Ever since it had its current type of atmosphere (which Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide content have fluctured) there has been climate change due to various factors, external and internal - in fact some scientists had documented severe quick climate changes. Humanity has only been round fo so long and we can only find evidence for so much. Saying that i'll use an example - the United Kingdom was once covered in trees. Now thats all gone People claim that trees dont have much to do with it but i suspect it doesnt help.

We cant change everything about this planet, well not yet - and when we do we will be in full charge and it will have lost its natural state anyway, in fact we are heading well for that.

Anyway - ive said all this before on other thread so i wont bother giving links this time. Besides the stuff you need is in scientific journals, which i cannot link you

oh yes. We are responsible. Very much so. But we have signed (and ratified) the Kyoto agreement - even if this is not a perfect agreement. The US signed it, then whined about it being flawed and refused to ratify it. We have been working toward a change. Americans have kept on with their oil consumption like mad. Whining a lot whenever gas prices move but a tiny fraction upwards when gas prices elsewhere in the west are much much much higher. Clinging to their SUVs, officially complaining to other nations when the climate restrictions they put in place might lower the sale of American cars in said country... Refusing to use public transportation, there are cities in the US, such as Mesquite Texas who refuse to have public transportation built there, even if the population might want and need it.
Statistically the USA is an extremely bad polluter. As far as CO2 emissions per capita they are #5 world wide. Beaten by Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain.
If you look at their CO2 emissions as a whole they are the worst in the world. 5 762 050 thousand metric tons is released from the USA. That is 25 % of the world's total CO2 emissions which is 22829463,2 thousand metric tons.

That is why I am angry with them. If they don't change the rest of us can all drive electric cars, and hydrogen powered ships, and we'd still have a problem!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Whining a lot whenever gas prices move but a tiny fraction upwards when gas prices elsewhere in the west are much much much higher.

What does the price of gasoline elsewhere matter? The reason that upwards movement of gasoline causes Americans to worry is that the economy is partly dependent on gasoline. Higher prices for gasoline could mean higher unemployment as gasoline dependent businesses go out of business. It isn't just a matter of "clinging to SUVs".

Refusing to use public transportation

Americans do not "refuse to use public transportation". I travelled on the bus and on subways frequently in America.

And keep in mind that many American cars are very good on gas mileage too. SUVs are an extreme case.

there are cities in the US, such as Mesquite Texas who refuse to have public transportation built there, even if the population might want and need it.

What was the reason for their refusal? How much of the population there wanted public transportation?


eudaimonia,

Mark