Here we go again: this guy talks about global warming

I figured since I already ran everybody else off with the diesel fumes, I might as well talk about global warming. Wait! No, stay! It won't be that bad, I promise.

I haven't talked about it in a long time, but that doesn't mean I haven't been looking into it. I think I've gotten it to a pretty good place. I just read a couple of good books on the subject that I'll share with you, and then I'll talk about where I've landed on the issue. But to give you an idea, here's a little preview of where I'm going:

• There are people on either side screaming about the issue, but the climate change/C02 set shares many goals with the "no dependence on foreign oil" crowd. There are things we can do, for a decade or two, that will make sense regardless of whether GW is for real. That should buy some time for more research to be done, modeling technology to get more accurate, and a good assessment to be made before we commit trillions of dollars to an idea everyone's not on board with.
• Let's focus on the 'global' before the warming. This is the idea I'm the most excited about, and the idea that people within church circles have embraced to an extent, and should embrace more. Before we try to literally change the atmospheric makeup of our planet to try and help poor people, why not start helping poor people now in less expensive, more tangible ways? Ideas like World Vision, Compassion, Make Trade Fair, Make Poverty History all come to mind...

See that wasn't so bad? So give me a few days, maybe 5 posts tops, and we'll see how this goes...

On a side note, the last time I did this I got some pretty vicious email. While that's fine and I'm ready for that, just remember one thing: I'm not an expert, I'm just a guy who likes to read!

Comments

[Chris]

Ami,
The Coleman article is laughable in its fallacy and error. It is also typical in its attack of global warming: hope and conspiracy theory, which involves the media, big business and the government. Ironically, it is big business and the government who have been the slowest to accept the reality of climate change. Most notably, Coleman includes no facts to justify his position.
I will refer you to two charts. The first shows the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, highlighting the recent dramatic rise that corresponds with the explosion of the use of fossil fuels (which Coleman agrees with), and also reveals the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (which Coleman disputes, but is made clear by the chart). The second shows the daily measures of CO2 levels taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii since 1958. Clearly, the trend is up, and combined with the first graphic, we have moved well beyond any natural fluctuations. We did this.
I don't want to hijack Mark's blog on this anymore, but if you would like to continue this discussion, I can be reached at aussietaylor@gmail.com.

[Ami]

Chris,
I kindly disagree that climate change is a direct result of our actions. There is a very interesting article, on the web, written by John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel. He basically says that we have all been duped into the global warming scam. I liken it to the Y2K extravaganza. There were some out there who genuinely believed that something catastrophic was going to happen. Then you had the majority who didn't 'really' think something was going to occur but they were duped into thinking: what if? Those folks went out and stocked up on batteries and bottled water "just in case." The remainder of society was just basically apathetic. The global warming hype is no different. People are essentially in that "what-if" mindset.

[Chris]

Ami, it has become a political issue, no doubt. And it is liberal/conservative in the sense that liberals generally are willing to do something about it and conservatives generally try to deny the obvious.
My point is that this is not like the economy where you can take a liberal or conservative approach to addressing the issue. Climate change is happening, and it is a direct result of our actions. And neither of our political persuasions changes that reality.
Man was given dominion over the earth by God, and we have done a poor job of that, particularly since our oil addiction began.

[Ami]

Chris, I disagree. I think global warming is very much a liberal/conservative issue. Your analogy illustrated my point. Thanks.

[Chris]

I am sad to hear about the emails you received, Mark--that type of thing won't solve anything.
Having said that, Ami, global warming isn't a liberal/conservative issue. And saying that you don't believe in GW is reminiscent of people saying they didn't believe the world was round five hundred years ago.
Besides, GW isn't about the earth--it will be just fine. GW is about life; it is about us. We are creating a future today that will make life difficult, and eventually impossible, for our children.

[Ami]

Yikes! Nothing gets people going like saying something about global warming. I mentioned to someone (a very liberal someone) that I didn't believe global warming exists and oy, was that a mistake! Let me say that I am as green as I can be and I make every effort to conserve where I can. I am a naturalist and I think God gave us wonderful resources to use while we are here. However, Scripture tells us all we need to know about the fate of this world. This is not the everlasting universe and we know for sure we are counting down to the end.

[Murthen]

Good to see you back on the green stuff again! Have you heard of a scientist called Sir John Houghton - he's the chairman of the IPCC working group and a committed Christian. Check him out on wiki - he has some thoughtful things to say.

[Joe D.]

I never thought about that second point until you brought it up. It may be true that GW is a threat, but I really don't think thats the biggest concern for those people who struggle to find food everyday or whose parents have died from AIDS. I'm not advocating that we forget about GW, I simply agree that we need to get our global priorities straight... Great points Mark