Listen to this post
RBC I Recap: In the first three parts we discussed the makeup of our atmosphere and the climate and noted some challenges by scholars of some of the current talking points. We also gave examples of why just following the “consensus” science is not a good enough reason to accept any point of view.
In reality, when we take into consideration items over which man has no control, the sun, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, etc., which tend to operate on long term cycles, far more of our climate is controlled by events that are not man made. If you look at graphs that go back more than a century, this becomes very obvious. While the concern for now is “global warming” we could even ask the question of if this is actually a “global” phenomenon? According to some scientists, we will soon be entering what is called a “maunder-minimum” when the sun won’t be emitting so many solar flares. Their prediction is that in just a couple of years it’s going to be a little colder on this planet.(1)
There are, of course, many who insist that the computer climate models done 50 years ago correctly predicted the climate we have today.(2) They are quite certain that man can control the greenhouse gasses, and it is our job to do so. Generally those pushing this scenario are those wanting government to step in and issue directives on what we can or can’t do.(3) They refer to anyone who disagrees with their point of view as a denier, and the “deniers” use history to explain their view, but there doesn’t appear to be any real debate.(4) Those scientists who disagree with the “consensus” are either ignored or ridiculed.
What should concern us about this whole debate is the fact that many of those who are clamoring for a government solution to pollution, are themselves really big polluters. They jet around in their private planes while telling the rest of us to give up our automobiles because we are the ones causing pollution. Given the modern technology we have, why didn’t Ms. Thunberg stay in her home country and appear by video like the Pope did? Don’t you think she’s being a bit hypocritical? Why are we relying on a teenager’s opinion if we’re talking about a “scientific emergency.” Doesn’t this seem like the argument isn’t as much science as it is an emotional appeal? There is definitely concern that this is the case. (5)
Another aspect of this issue that seems a little disconcerting is what appears to be the religious fervor of those promoting the climate change doctrine. It seems to fit at least three definitions of religion according to the online dictionary including: 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience. (6) Yes, the dictionary references traditional religion as examples, but even the first edition of the Humanist Manifesto referred to themselves as religious in Affirmation 1. “Religious humanists regard the universe …” I point that out only because I think we need to be wary of any “science” that doesn’t allow questions. Again, that is one of Dr. Soon’s and other’s concerns as well — any discussion that casts doubt on this current paradigm is taboo. (7)
Should we do something? Of course we should do what we can to make this earth a better place. Man was given the command to be stewards over the earth. That means taking care of it, but we were also meant to use it. We need to be concerned about people, though, as well. Having factories that are cleaner, emissions that are cleaner, etc., are all necessary to care for our environment, keeping in mind that people as well are part of the environment. It is our job as humans to take care of the earth. That doesn’t mean worshipping it to the point of not using the resources in it at all, nor does it mean we should just rape and pillage it so there’s nothing left for future generations. We can definitely point to the past and see where we could be charged with the rape and pillage aspect, but now we are taking the pendulum to the extreme in the other direction where we will be guilty of worshipping the earth, rather than using it wisely. We need balance. Wise use of our natural resources will benefit everyone as a whole. If we help those who are spending their whole day just trying to survive by making their lives easier, they will have more time to do things to help our planet thrive. We need to seek wisdom, working together to create balance.
We need to keep in mind that our God given human ingenuity will continue to come up with new and better ways of doing things — provided, that is, we are allowed the freedom to do so. The biggest concern of this movement is the push toward more government and even globalization of government. This will only result in more people dying and progress coming to a halt. Every time any group of people has tried to put all things together under one roof, so to speak, which is what socialism is, has resulted in tyranny, loss of freedom, and starving people. We aren’t going to help people in Africa or anywhere else by riding bicycles or walking to work. We will only help them by giving them a hand up, not a hand out. They need to be taught how to harness the natural forces of the earth just as we have progressively done in the Western world.
All references are those that can be found online. While I read many other sources, I chose not to use sources for references that were not readily available to anyone who might want to pursue checking out everything written.
By LEONA HEMMERICH
Special to the Herald Times