• Believer vs. agnostic vs. skeptic on global warming

    4

    Remember the hilarious strip in Mad Magazine: “spy vs. spy vs. spy,” wherein the third spy, a woman, always wins. This column will resemble that three-way circus, which Sergio Leone wittily dramatized as “The Good the Bad and the Ugly,” starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach.

    The trinity here is the believer, the agnostic and the skeptic in the theology of global warming and climate change.

    As I anticipated, an answer from a climate change believer to my two columns on climate change (“A crisis of credibility: Climate change nothing but a lie”, Times, Oct 25; and “Climate alarmism fosters energy poverty” Times, Oct. 28) has finally materialized. And it has come circuitously in the form of a column by Mr. Ken Fuller in the Daily Tribune. He calls his column “An outsider’s view”, which means I presume that he is an expatriate working or residing in the Philippines.

    I should also mention that the Times in an editorial some weeks back professed belief in climate change, following another issuance from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) that reiterated its belief in the reality of climate change.

    This column is a reply to these ripostes.

    Reply of a warming devotee

    Mr. Fuller describes me as a global-warming denier; I prefer to be debated with as a global warming skeptic.

    Mr. Fuller’s riposte consists of (1) begging the question by saying that “there is a consensus of international scientists that there is man-made global warming.”

    (2) Trying to discredit the scientists and writers for not being climatologists but scientists in other fields, as though anyone who is not a climatologist is not entitled to an opinion on the issue; and

    (3) Impugning scientists and writers who dispute the reality of global warming as being funded by oil industry interests, while glossing over the huge lobby money for climate-change.

    Is Fuller accusing me of the same? I reply that no group has ever propounded to me the idea of writing on climate change. This is an interest formed wholly by my work as a journalist and advocate of sound public policy. More important, I call attention to the following holes in his column:

    1. He does not rebut the statement I quoted from London’s Daily Express that there has been no global warming for the past 18 years. All he offers is a phantom consensus.

    2. If he is such a believer in global warming, why did his church change names to “climate change.”

    Testament of an agnostic

    In reply to Fuller’s column and the Times editorial, I call attention to an article published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 19, 2014, which seems to me unassailable.

    The article is entitled “Climate science is not settled” by Dr. Steven Koonin (http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-141114356)

    Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

    Dr. Koonin contends that there is no certainty in climate science today.
    The other points of his article are:

    1. Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.

    2. We often hear it claimed that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.

    3. There are marked differences in the details and projections of the computer models such as:

    • Although the Earth’s average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years.

    • The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

    • The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed.

    • Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

     The skeptic’s view: No to carbon chastity

    Now, we turn to the last leg in our trinity, the skeptic’s view, which I share.

    I am deeply skeptical of the ideology of climate change and the grand claims of global warming. Nothing I have read has persuaded me that there is global warming, or that my country the Philippines must contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions.

    Foreign environmentalists have no business imposing on us or twisting our arms to convert to the church of global warming.

    We need all the energy we can get from crude oil and coal in order to grow our economy.

    I totally agree with another warming skeptic, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who says that environmentalism has proclaimed the ultimate commandment – carbon chastity.

    He says public policy should focus on what is doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive.

    The most obvious answer, he says, is a major move to nuclear power, which is to the atmosphere the cleanest of the clean. But then the church of the environment also preaches a strict nuclear taboo.

    I believe we should spend money on disaster preparedness, but we should not waste time and resources on climate change and attending global conferences that go nowhere.

    In this sphere, it’s all right to be a non-believer. You won’t go to hell. You might even help to make our country a better place.

    yenmakabents@yahoo.com

    Share.
    loading...
    Loading...

    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    4 Comments

    1. I share the issues you brought up on climate change. The entire world has been made to believe this man-made perspective losing sight of scientific basis and biblical teachings and imposing on developing countries what to do.

      People tend to be pre occupied with this issue to the point of neglecting or not believing the power of Jesus Christ who has all the power on Earth as the Son of the Almighty God.

      I pray that humanity turn their faith to God instead of the environment.

      • I could say that I have a strong faith in Jesus as you might be, but I strongly disagree with what you said “faith to God instead of the environment”, I think protecting the environment is not veering away from God, but rather simply being good steward of this environment that has been entrusted to us.

        to let Jesus fix this problem we are creating as you suggest, God might simply reply “I gave it to you to care and benefit, now you would want me to fix your mess? use the gift of brain I gave you”…

        Im not a environment fundamentalist, but I do agree that to some extent we have to be environmentally responsible… but not as what business firms suggest/economic movers suggest.

    2. If the rise in the Earth’s temperature is the only concern over climate change, how about the air pollution in Manila. The smog in Beijing is non-debatable. One breathes differently in Metro Manila than in Tagaytay. Air pollution affect climate change. The frequency and intensity of natural disasters is rising all over the world. To think that the world’s temperature will stay the same with the incremental addition of the continuous burning of fossil fuel is rather naive. It may not be global warming but certainly change in climate.

    3. Try to go to weatheraction.com, they sell, yes sell, weather forecasts based on an unorthodox solar lunar action technique that is the most accurate in the world, or so it is claimed anyway, and they don’t believe in warming either. In fact they believe we are entering a mini ice age instead. Also, NASA has already declared that CO2 is a refrigerant. Personally, I think warming is a hoax, which is consistent with practically everything we are made to believe since we were born. Everything must be based on reason not faith, including religion itself, but the powers that be in this world simply will not allow it.