Why it’s pointless to be a global warming skeptic
My take on global warming is intuitive rather than scientific, based on information readily available from my brain. It goes like this:
A) There is a fixed amount of carbon on the planet.
B) Burning stored, high-carbon materials releases carbon into the atmosphere.
C) Petroleum is basically the world’s carbon bank — compressed biomatter from jungles that existed on earth hundreds of millions of years ago.
D) In the past 100 years, a very large percentage of all the petroleum that our planet has ever produced has been burned, and ALL that carbon has been released into the atmosphere.
E) Release of that much carbon into the atmosphere has to be unprecedented in at least the last several million years.
F) It’s simply counterintuitive to believe that 100 years of heavy industrial production based on the burning of petroleum would not affect the behavior of the earth’s atmosphere.
G) The way things are going, we will easily burn up every last drop of oil on the planet in the next century or two. In the next century or three after that, historians will call us the most selfish, short-sighted humans in the planet’s history because we were borrowing all that oil from future generations — with no prospect, no plan, no earthly idea of paying it back.
H) We can adapt to life with different weather, but adapting to a world without petroleum will be the far greater challenge.
I) Given all these considerations, the mandate to save petroleum by not burning it all wastefully yields the same result: less carbon in the atmosphere and reduced global warming, and more petro-chemicals for future generations, giving us more time to develop more sustainable energy sources.
Conclusions:
- Billions of humans burning highly concentrated, carbon-based materials are bound to screw with the weather when all that carbon is released into the atmosphere.
- Petroleum is the most powerful, practical component of industrial society. It is, literally, the grease on the wheels. Without it, industry stops. We don’t want that.
- As a matter of moral principle, each of us should reduce our petroleum consumption to ensure there will be some oil left for our great-great-great-grandchildren and their great-great-great grandchildren.
Al Gore overstates the extent to which the Earth is in the Balance. If anything, Earth is looking forward to the day when we foolishly burn all the oil and resort to massive warfare and bioterror and whatever else it takes to cleanse our species from the planet’s surface. Earth gets back into balance when we’re not mucking up the place anymore.
We’re flying through resources under the mass delusion that we have a say in how things turn out, when the best we can hope for is learning to play by the planet’s rules. Cheaters get to sleep with the dinosaurs.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:25 am
While I agree with you on some points, I disagree on others. Part of my disagreements come from a foundation of Christian beliefs, i.e. Earth was made for man, not vice-versa, Earth was aged very quickly from a great flood and is not billions of years old, etc.
I also think that we have to take into account that if the Earth is billions of years old, and was once highly volcanic, how much carbon did millions of years of volcanic activity release? It just all doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Thanks for keeping it civil!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Derek: even from a monotheistic perspective, you have to imagine a world created by an entity capable of creating a planet so complex that after thousands of years, we have only the barest understanding of how it works. Even if such a planet were built solely for our benefit, we would still have to abide by the lessons the planet (and, ergo, the Creator) is teaching us.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Well, I can’t argue with you on that one! Agreed!
April 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I have no expertise in theology but it seems to me the folks saying the Christian Bible’s creation story is actual fact and that the world is only a few thousand years old are needlessly complicating their lives.
We live in a technological society that is a direct consequence of the scientific method — observation, trial and error, and recording of phenomena that can be repeated by others using similar methodology. Scientific method essentially proves what does exist and what doesn’t exist.
To date, no deities have been discovered by the scientific method, though that does not mean they cannot exist.
Humans have only five senses and we are limited to being able to experience only the information provided by those senses. So, logically, it’s absurd to say the only things that exist in the universe are things humans can see, feel, hear, taste or smell (dolphins have sonar, which proves the existence of other kinds of sensory perception).
Strikes me that it would make far more sense, pragmatically, to reconcile age-old stories with what science tells is us true, rather than insist that somehow the science is wrong when everything we do in life these days, from starting the car to flushing the toilet — results from methods of experimentation and observation that we trust because they work.
The stories in the Bible don’t have to be factual accounts of things that actually happened to offer guidance in how we get along with people, take care of the planet and craft our societies. And somehow I doubt that a deity capable of creating such a vast, fascinating planet and giving us the ability to develop the scientific method of understanding it would be impressed with those who willfully refuse to use their brains and bodies to their full potential. Why would we have them if not to use them?
April 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I agree with much of what you are saying. Here’s the main logic we disagree on:
IF God exists, and He’s spoken to humanity, and what God says about certain things (heaven and hell, how to live, etc.) is true, but what He says about other things (creation, miracles, etc.) are not factual, how can we trust anything the Bible says.
I choose to believe (faith) that the Bible is true and not symbolic, unless the Bible clearly states that the story is symbolic (parables, etc.).
Science is meant to help us understand how this world works. To do “true” Science, you must put aside all biases and look at something (fossils, etc.) with a blank slate. This has not been done with current theories of how this world came into place. All new discoveries are looked at through the lens of Darwinism. In essence, we are using theory (earth layers, which I’m not even going to get into the flawed science of that) to prove theory. It is impossible to observe macro-evolution. The Big Bang is also impossible to observe. Therefore, Macro-evolution and the current theory about the origin of the universe does not HAVE to be the lens through which we view the world and current discoveries. These things are believed to be true by faith and now these theories are no longer tested…just used as filters to new discoveries.
For years, people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth and every new discovery about the Sun was used to prove this truth. People believed that the Earth was flat and every discovery was used to prove this truth. But when the truth was observed, it proved these things to be false.
I’d be lying to say that I look at Scientific discoveries without a bias. I filter everything through my foundational beliefs (the Bible). And I believe what the Bible says through faith. This is no more complicating my life than evolution and the big bang have complicated the way Science is done today.
I agree that the amenities I enjoy are due to scientific method. But it seems like we’ve now thrown away the Scientific method in the study of the origin of the universe and it’s species and even in some of the evidences for global warming. The evidence itself needs to be tested just as much as the theory that’s being used to filter the evidence. This is where we have currently failed in Science as a whole.
No, the Bible stories don’t have to be true to offer guidance for daily living. But if they’re not true, then we can’t trust anything else the Bible says to be true. And, in actuality, I believe that because of everything God’s given humans (though everything truly belongs to God but has been entrusted to humans), then it is my duty to be a good steward of everything he’s given me (the Earth, my intellect and reason, my body).
I believe that God would be disappointed because we’re [many scientists are] not using our knowledge to the full potential in that we have willingly ignored many evidences and exceptions to the current theories to prove something that we want to believe (current theories of the origins of the universe, global warming, etc). We treat them as a law and not a theory.
And who doesn’t want to believe we’ve figured out the keys to the universe and it’s beginnings and now God is obselete? Who doesn’t want to believe that the Earth and it’s very existence is in our power? It’s human nature to be proud and think of ourselves as being in control and truly understanding everything (though I don’t think that’s where you stand, personally).
I have no problem with people or scientists questioning my belief system (Christianity). It doesn’t bother me one bit. I do have a problem when we throw away Science and everything it stands for to do so.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Wow. That was way longer than I thought. Sorry.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
We need to build more nuclear reactors — now!
April 16th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Derek: I don’t think your all-or-nothing approach is rational or necessary. Does one fact error in a newspaper render everything in it false?
Certainly any errors in the document would by definition be the result of human errors, because by definition the supreme being is inerrant.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Tom: Obviously, what you’re saying is true. If there are any errors in the Bible, I believe they would be human error.
My question is this: If some of the document is human error, and some is divinely inspired, how can one determine which is which? Is this up to the reader’s opinion? If so, wouldn’t it be man-made instead of divine? Is it up to Scientific reason? If everything in the document can be completely explained by Science, wouldn’t it cease to be a divine writing? Or would it make us divine also for cracking the code?
April 16th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
By the way, I believe that only the original writings are inspired. Everything else is a copy, so it is possible to contain errors, though highly unlikely since we have discovered more ancient copies of scripture than any other ancient documents and they are about 99 percent in agreement. Even the disagreements don’t change the stories or Christian doctrine. The disagreements are usually scribal errors such as putting 93 instead of 39.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Derek, this was a fun conversation. Back when I was young and foolish I used to think I could sway people with the sheer force of my command of logic. One of the keys to adulthood is realizing this is impossible.
It’s interesting that you want proof of evolution and the big bang, which act least have a veneer of plausibility based on experimentation and observation, but you need no proof of a supreme being for which there has been no successful experimentation or observation. But there’s more to life than logic, as Star Trek proved so ably.
I have a camping analogy for religion: it’s like a pillow that helps people sleep at night. You could go through a campground and take everybody’s pillows away; they could still get some sleep, I suppose, but the act of willfully imposing discomfort on them will not win you any friends.
I realize it’s more complicated than than that, but it is, essentially, a source of comfort to people. People need to take their comforts where they can find them; the world has far to many fonts of discomfort.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes it was, and this will be my last post.
I do not need evidence of evolution and the big bang. The point I was trying to make (well, one of many), was that there is no evidence for them.
Thus, BOTH (mine, and yours) points of view are based on faith. Mine, on a God who has always been. Others, on a cosmic egg in the universe that has always been and eventually exploded into a planet. Evolution and the Big bang are a religion unto themselves. Both based on faith. It takes no more faith for me to believe in God than it does to believe the opposing view.
Neither can be proven with observation, so, philosophically, both are plausible. My point of view and others like it are technically just as valid. It’s not a source of comfort for me…it’s the answer to my existence. Just like the other view (evolution), taken in faith, is “the answer” for the existence of others.
The main difference: My view gives life purpose. The opposing view offers nothing but aimless wondering.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Derek: fair enough, though I sense I may have hit too close to the nerve there and if so, I apologize.
I don’t think the opposing view is aimless wandering, though. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that point.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I’m not offended at all and I always appreciate the chance to dialogue on pretty much any controversial topic. I don’t think anyone ever changes anyone’s mind in conversations like this, but I’m always up for a little good-natured debate every now and then. Hopefully, I didn’t offend you, either. If I did, I’m sorry about that.
I read your hiking blog just about every day and am always jealous over your California hiking. I’ve never actually been out there, but I plan to do a JMT thru-hike in about 5 years. Maybe I’ll see ya on the trail sometime!