Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming

I didn't see Terry's note, though I don't see how the discussion has been
off-topic. I think it's been a good and clarifying discussion about the
ethical and political implications of global warming. It doesn't get much
more faith-science than that.

As to the "confession" -- sheesh, can't we engage in a little good-natured
ribbing once in a while? *Of course* it wasn't a "confession" -- but the
ELCA isn't exactly known as an arm of the religious right. Anyway, I
was *kidding.
*Don't ever let it be said that economic conservatives lack a sense of
humor.

On 2/6/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> Since Terry has called attention to the off-topic character of our
> discussion, let me conclude my remarks with the following.
>
> 1) I do not consider what I said a "confession" & it's not clear to me
> why it should be amusing. While I take full responsibility for my own
> philosophical and political decisions, my primary purpose there wasn't to
> bare my soul.
>
> 2) As I said earlier, I continue to agree with some conservative views,
> though I worry not at all whether or not I am adhering to any conservative
> orthodoxy. My earlier post should be read as a recoognition from a
> participant in the earlier conservative movement of a specific way in which
> I think it failed. Call that a confession if you wish. I posted in a
> spirit quite different from that of the heavy-handed parody of my post which
> just appeared here.
>
> 3) I tried hard to make it clear that I was suggesting possible parallels
> between the views of principled conservatives who, because of their
> principles, were hesitant to take what turned out to be necessary measures
> (though in some cases they were overdone) to ensure civil rights and
> those today who are hesitant to take strong measures on global warming. I
> was not speaking of those who actively worked to *deny* civil rights to
> blacks, though one could debate the distinction. One could draw a
> parallel between them and some fanatical opponents of the environmental
> movement but that was my purpose in posting.
>
> 4) I made no statements at all about Kyoto. FWIW here's what I wrote a
> few years ago (& what after some shortening appeared in my 2003 book) about
> what should be done about global warming. I trust you will see that it is
> hardly a proposal for immediate draconian action. After sketching the basic
> physics of the greenhouse effect I wrote:
>
>
> At this point, however, the scientific questions become difficult. To
> begin with, it is not easy to determine how the average temperature over the
> entire earth has changed over the two centuries since the beginning of the
> industrial revolution. (There seems to have been an increase of a little
> less than a Celsius degree over the past century.[1]) Then any serious
> attempt to explain the data scientifically has to deal with an exceedingly
> complex system involving the earth's atmosphere, input of solar energy,
> influences on the composition of the atmosphere due to interactions with the
> oceans and the respiration of forests and agricultural land, and other
> factors - in addition to the combustion of wood and fossil fuels. Computer
> models are used to study global climate change, but the results which they
> give are only as good as the data and the knowledge of physical processes
> with which they are programmed. At the present time we cannot say that we
> have a satisfactory understanding of global temperature change.[2] It is
> even possible that attempts to eliminate another environmental threat, that
> of acid rain, exacerbate global warming. The sulfur dioxide from fossil
> fuels which is responsible for the former problem reflect solar radiation
> and thus cut down on the heating of the earth.[3]
>
> We are faced here with another of the ethical ambiguities of modern
> technology. The effects of global warming by a couple of degrees during
> the next century could be catastrophic, with the flooding of coastal cities
> and the reduction of agricultural land to dustbowl conditions. But if we
> are not fairly sure that this will happen, should we take such major steps
> as those proposed in 1997 by the Kyoto Protocol, which would require the
> industrialized nations to bear much of the burden of reduction of CO2 and
> other greenhouse gases and would have some serious effects on their
> economies?[iv] It is reasonable to ask countries which have received the
> most benefit from industrialization to make some sacrifices, but can we put
> people out of work and their families on welfare because of a catastrophe
> which might happen in fifty years?
>
> It is necessary especially for the industrialized nations to make a
> decision, and it will not do to use the present uncertain state of
> scientific knowledge as an excuse to maintain the status quo. The best
> informed guess at present is that our technological culture is having some
> effect in heating the planet, and that it would be wise at least until our
> scientific models give us greater certainty to slow the production of
> greenhouse gases and deforestation. Technology should not be demonized,
> as if it were always an enemy of some romanticized state of nature, but
> those who have it should not use it simply for their own short term benefit.
> The welfare of other nations, of future human generations of the entire
> world, and of other species, should be considered.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1]. Chris Bright, "Tracking the Ecology of Climate Change" in Lester R.
> Brown *et al.*, *State of the World 1997* (W.W. Norton, New York, 1997),
> Chapter 5.
>
> [2]. Cf. Freeman J. Dyson, "The Science and Politics of Climate", *APS
> News* *8.5*, 12, 1999.
>
> [3]. Seth Borenstein, "Cutting acid rain might boost global warming," *The
> [Akron] Beacon Journal*, 8 July 1999, A11.
>
> [iv]. "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
> Climate Change," available at
> http://worldpolicy.org/americas/environment/kyoto.html.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> *Cc:* Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> ; wdwllace@sympatico.ca; Randy
> Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2007 10:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming
>
>
> Maybe. I didn't live through the 50's and early 60's and I'm the first to
> acknowledge my historical situatedness. I do remember though as a kid in
> the early 70's hearing snippets of talk about race in my white suburban
> middle class conservative fundamental / evangelical context -- usually not
> pretty at all.
>
> Still, I'm uncomfortable with the comparison. It's sort of a rhetorical
> atom bomb -- "your position is just like [opposing the civil rights movement
> / denying the holocaust / what the Nazi's would have said.....]" So if I
> question the wisdom of Kyoto, it's the same as denying civil rights to
> African Americans?
>
> Monotonically -- hmm, probably misused the word, but on reflection, I like
> how it came out.
>
>
> On 2/5/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are reading a 2007 understanding of the racial situation
> > back into the 50s. Even many whites who in general terms were sympathetic
> > with the situation of southern blacks didn't seen it as "monotonically
> > evil." (I'm not sure what you mean by that anyway. A function that changes
> > "monotonically" is one which is always getting either greater or smaller -
> > i.e., whose derivative doesn't change sign. Before the civil rights
> > movement started most northern whites didn't see the racial situation as
> > getting progressively worse.)
> >
> > Shalom
> > George
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > *To:* Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> > *Cc:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; wdwllace@sympatico.ca ; Randy
> > Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> > *Sent:* Monday, February 05, 2007 7:38 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming
> >
> >
> > * I think what George was driving at was the consequences
> > of being on the wrong side. I take that seriously,*
> >
> > Right... me too.... *but*, I still think the comparison doesn't work.
> > With the civil rights movement, there were immediate evils visible to
> > everyone -- lynchings, church burnings, people being turned away at the
> > university gate, segregated lunch counters, etc. In that context, it's
> > very, very hard to make a plausible non-racially motivated argument that
> > local governance, markets operating over time, etc. are enough. With global
> > warming, we have clear indications of a trend that could be very dangerous
> > over the next 100 years -- or that could be mostly mitigated by new
> > technology -- or that could be mostly adapted to -- or any wide variety of
> > other plausible scenarios. It's difficult to see the moral commensurability
> > with the immediate, monotonically evil threats confronted by the civil
> > rights movement.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/5/07, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- David Opderbeck < dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > *I was a YAF belonging - National Review subscribing - Goldwater
> > > applauding
> > > > -conservative candidate door knocking - card carrying
> > > conservative. So I
> > > > know a bit about it from the inside.*
> > > >
> > > > Really! I knew there was a spark of something in there somewhere...
> > >
> > > > Remember, even Darth Vader eventually came back from the Dark Side
> > > :-)
> > > >
> > > Ditto
> > > [big snip]
> > > > At the end of the day, then, I think the comparison between the
> > > civil rights
> > > > movement and global warming is superficial at best.
> > > >
> > > This may be true, but I think what George was driving at was the
> > > consequences
> > > of being on the wrong side. I take that seriously, while agreeing with
> > > you that
> > > the case for environmental action -- on the scale the
> > > environmentalists seem to
> > > be calling for -- is less clear than it was in the case of civil
> > > rights.
> > >
> > > Bill Hamilton
> > > William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> > > 248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
> > > "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > Looking for earth-friendly autos?
> > > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
> > > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> > Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> > MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.