TBTM20091219


Some links:
A good THES article on AGW.
A high-powered video on climategate including Richard Lindzen and other academics (warning: 2 hours long).
Interesting FT overview of what top climate scientists actually think.
A critique of Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech re: Just War theory. (H/T Grandmere Mimi)
Obama’s ‘Predictably Irrational’ economic policies.
Stanley Fish’s review of Going Rogue. Related: a Huffington Post article on ‘Dissolving the Palin prejudice’.
Some interesting world maps.

A last word about AGW

I really wasn’t going to say anything more about AGW; my list of posts was going to be the last thing because I’m wanting to move on to more interesting things, more spiritually rewarding things… but perhaps a programmatic summary would be of use.

I believe:
1. our present industrialised Western society is going through a great dislocation and that in 10-20 years time we will be in a completely different place.
2. we are called to prepare for this shift; that, for example, it makes eminent good sense to change our patterns of life towards reduced consumption, sustainable energy supplies, localised food and so on. In other words, I think the Transition Town agenda is what needs to be followed.
3. the above is true irrespective of the truth of AGW. However, I think AGW has become a distraction, for the following reasons:
– it is neither the most immediate, nor the most pressing, of the Limits to Growth (Peak Oil is much more immediate and will achieve most of what the anti-AGW advocates recommend; deforestation is probably more pressing);
– the politicisation of the science has obscured what is actually KNOWN about what is presently happening. Clearly the climate is changing, it is probable that human activity is contributing to that change – but the extent of that contribution, the possibility of negative feedbacks in the climate system and, most especially, the reliability of the models used for long-term forecasting (which have not exactly had a good record so far) – all these things are much less certain than the “consensus” would have us believe;
– this politicisation often takes the form of ‘apocalypticising’, ie forecasting a dread future. I see such apocalypticising as theologically corrupt and corrupting and no Christian should indulge in it as it demonstrates a lack of faith (NB I accuse myself in saying this);
– this lack of faith has a correspondence in a form of ecological Protestant Work Ethic – that if only we can be righteous enough, in the form of reducing our carbon footprints etc, then we can achieve our salvation. This too is sub-Christian.
4. “He has shown you, O Man, what is good.” I don’t believe that Christians need to be convinced about Global Warming – or about Peak Oil – in order to move towards the way of life that is God’s intention for us. The root problems that we face lie in particular idolatries – idolatries of Mammon, of Baal, of our own egotistical choices – and the principal manifestations of those idolatries are our worshipping patterns and our abandonment of social justice. I firmly believe that if the Christian community gets its worship right (especially through recentring upon the Eucharist, our new covenant which renews creation) and – on that basis – gets serious about tackling social injustice both locally and globally, then God will heal the world. In other words, all the environmental crises are but symptoms of the more fundamental spiritual crisis.
5. I am therefore convinced – and this may just be for me and not universal for every Christian – that the most important thing that I can do to alleviate the ecological crisis is help Christians to become serious in their discipleship and pursue all that Jesus taught. If we become the fully human creatures that God intends for us to be, then the creation’s groanings will finally cease.

My AGW posts

This is an index of my posts on AGW, for ease of access.

A summary of where I’m coming from
Climate change is a secondary issue
Two steps towards climate change scepticism (when my thoughts were still in flux)
Why am I an AGW sceptic?
The historic link between CO2 and temperature
Something brief on AGW
Some thoughts on climate change and Peak Oil
My first stirrings of scepticism in 2006

And some broader posts to put that scepticism into context (the important thing is that I very much accept and endorse the broader Limits to Growth argument):
Babylon at the gates
That time has come and gone my friend
Why bother saving the planet?

For a full exposition of my point of view on all this go to my talks (which will hopefully become a book before too long).

Why am I an AGW sceptic?

This is in response to an e-mail, which asks: “I wonder if you could enlarge on your global warming scepticism?
1. Is it not a fact that there is less ice over the North Pole, and that glaciers are retreating all over the world?
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as a result of burning fossil fuels over the last 200 years we have increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50%.
Does it not seem likely that 2 has contributed to 1?”

I say:
– no denial that there has been significant warming, esp. through the second half of the twentieth century, the issue is about the A of the AGW (ie how far is it anthropogenic);
– the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising consistently since industrialisation;
– the temperature has not displayed anything like a linear relationship with CO2;
– the temperature has fluctuated significantly in previous centuries without any regard to CO2 (and, I believe, has been warmer than today eg in the Medieval Warm Period);
– I’m therefore dubious about the anthropogenic element, and I haven’t seen very much that convincingly links the temperature shifts to human activity. It’s a reasonably plausible hypothesis which I find, at present, ‘not proven’.

I could well be wrong. I don’t think that AGW is a ‘hoax’, I think that there is a perfidious industry of ‘climate change denial’ and I am quite open to the idea that human activity has indeed had an effect on the climate change. However, even if AGW is true, I see it as largely irrelevant because a) the peaking of fossil fuels places an absolute limit on emissions (at a much lower level than the IPCC expect, and which will achieve vastly more than any inter-governmental agreements like Kyoto or Copenhagen) and b) we need to change our behaviour (we will be forced to change our behaviour) anyway due to the many other limits to growth.

In other words, I’m starting to see all the fuss about climate change as being like an engineer rushing up to tell the captain of the Titanic that he needs to shut down the engines because if he doesn’t, they are likely to blow up in a day or two, and the captain says ‘Engineer, we’ve just struck an iceberg!’

I’m also getting more sceptical about the way that the church is latching on to the issue (and, indeed, on to Peak Oil). I think that we miss the point of our calling if we hitch our behaviour to contemporary issues. We need to live sub specie aeternitatis whatever the science tells us.