Gore Using "Junk Science"

Well, it's a sad day when one has to turn his ear to Canada to find a reasonable voice in any matter, but such are the times we live in! I strongly encourage all sane people (I understand that discriminates against some of you!) to read Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe by Tom Harris at Candadafreepress.com. For those who can't wait for another page to load, here are some juicy morsels:

• Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

• Patterson [a paleoclimatologist at Carleton Universtiy] concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.


• Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

One might think that the main issue in this debate is whether there is in fact any global warming taking place (Did it stop in 1998?). However, the really big question in the global warming debate is the question of human responsibility (and as it turns out, this primarily means the U.S. and western countries) in causing it. That is why the conclusion of the paleoclimatologist Patterson above about the correlation between Earth's temperature and changes in the Sun is so significant. The forces 99.99% responsible for controlling the Earth's temperature are beyond our control. Yet, the environmentalist wacko set, who have clearly "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator," want to take vast financial resources and couple them with a corresponding wealth of government regulation to effect what even they concede will be minute change in global temperatures and ocean levels. I am particularly troubled by the recent duping of evangelicals (including modern day evangelical saint, "Mr. Purpose-Driven" himself, Rick Warren) with the "Evangelical Climate Initiative," which is well-intentioned, but very misguided.
A much more responsible, and biblical, response to these issues is embodied in the Cornwall Declaration put out by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. I encourage you especially to read points 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "Our Concerns." 3 is so good that I give it to you here:

• 3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. Some well-founded concerns focus on human health problems in the developing world arising from inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices; distorted resource consumption patterns driven by perverse economic incentives; and improper disposal of nuclear and other hazardous wastes in nations lacking adequate regulatory and legal safeguards. Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

An example of the need for this distinction is the Kyoto Protocol. Implementation of Kyoto-type energy use limits would have an estimated impact of $1 trillion/year on global economic production. All this in an effort to help millions, perhaps billions of people--many of them among the world's poorest--from rising ocean levels that will wipe out the areas in which they live, by reducing temperatures .14 degrees! That's the wacko scenario. In contrast, it would take only a fraction of that same trillion dollars to provide clean drinking water and sanitation to all the remaining areas of the world presently without them! Which is a better use of the resources God has given us? Of course, this is the kind of thinking that Al Gore and his cronies think is wacko!