Re: [asa] Creation Care

On 1/19/07, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

> @ The whole "global warming" thing is a political movement full of people
> trying to cash in on the latest "scare".

Indeed, we have seen some good examples of political rather than
scientific arguments about global warming based on cherry picking of
data. I believe we all agree that we should avoid such fallacies. Of
course global warming is also the findings by a well established
scientific consensus based on extensive modeling and data.

> Those who insist that "consensus" is "science", are the same people who
> insist that "ID" isn't "science".

ID isn't science because it is based mostly on our ignorance. And of
course ID is just a minority position based mostly on poor science and
cherry picking of data.

> Who is kidding whom? What you have going on here is "pop-science" that
> appeals to the vacuous "pop-culture", which is so easily manipulated by
> slick advertising campaigns that it's downright embarrassing for the
> circumspect (ALWAYS the minority) to behold. History shows that
> "conventional wisdom" is hardly ever right, but who ever learns from
> history?

Yes, we are all familiar with the slick videos from ID proponents show
casing the bacterial flagella while failing to provide ANY explanation
as to its origins beyond 'poof'

> Any time you see the opportunists and their mad-cap hysterical "useful
> idiots" screaming the sky is falling and blowing things WAAAAAY out of
> proportion - follow the money - pure and simple.

That is a good warning and with big oil and tobacco for instance the
money seems to be not that hard to trace.

Seems that Janice and I may agree more than I had imagined, although
we may disagree as to whom her comments best apply.

A small test: Compare Janice's many claims in the past with rebuttals
by scientists on this group. What can we learn?

Janice is correct there is a small minority, on both sides of the
argument, that abuse the science for political and economical goals,
however the science behind global warming remains largely unassailed
and leads to the obvious conclusion that human component to global
warming is real and significant.
The question we need to ask is simple: If one side abuses science
should we 1) correct their claims 2) respond in a similar manner? I
believe that the answer should be self evidence as 2) will merely
cause us Christians to quickly run afoul of Augustine's fair warnings
and not just expose science but also our religious faith to
unnecessary threats.

May I also ask Janice to refrain from name calling. Such as in the
part she quotes

Want some laughs, read the comments here:
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html in response to this
"global warming" parrot:

Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988 - Here's Timothy "lie about it if we have
to" Wirth :

Surely we can stand above such level of sophomoric arguments?

For instance Wirth's claim which seems to be taken out of its proper context:

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of
global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of
economic policy and environmental policy"

What Wirth is stating is that even if the global warming science were
wrong, the actions taken are prudent and justifiable as an economic
and environmental policy. Now one may disagree with Wirth's statement
but to conclude that this amounts to "lie about it if we have to"
seems to be a misunderstanding of his actual comments.

I understand that such cherry picked quotes can make for powerful
rhetorical quotes but they have no relevance to the fact of global
warming and the fact of anthropogenic causes. They only serve to
undermine what Augustine warned us against.

What is Wirth's position?

<quote>He noted in his address that "the United States takes very
seriously the IPCC's recently issued Second Assessment Report." He
then proceeded to quote the SAR at length, proclaiming that "the
science is convincing; concern about global warming is real" </quote>

Wirth, T. E. (1996) "Statement on behalf of the United States of
America." Provided by USGCRP
office. Second Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, July 17, Geneva, Switzerland

See also http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/USclimate_2547.jsp

Wirth observes correctly that

<quote>Climate change is real. We know this from examining ice cores,
seabed sediments, and other data. The amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is higher today than it has been for hundreds of thousands
of years. Carbon acts as glass does with a greenhouse, letting heat in
but not allowing it to escape. And we know that global temperatures
are increasing. None of these facts is any longer in doubt.</quote>

The policy

<quote>The goal must be to stabilise the concentration of carbon at
double the historic record. In order to do that, the world needs to
cut emissions by at least two-thirds, or about 70% percent, by the
year 2050.</quote>

In fact. other than Fumento's quote, I have not been able to find an
independent verification of Wirth's statement. Perhaps Janice can
point us to such a source? After all the accusation of Wirth deserves
some real supporting evidence. But maybe I am old fashioned.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 15:14:22 2007