Grandma's Advice about Smoking and Global Warming

            According to Al Cross, columnist for the Louisville Courier Journal, the state of Kentucky “must face facts on science.”  He claims (without specific reference) that “97 percent of the climate-change scientists whose work has passed muster to be published in peer-reviewed journals say humans are making the earth warmer.”  Ironically, Mr. Cross never actually cites any facts about the science itself!  He just makes a claim that demands acceptance on faith.  But I have some modest issues with his claim. 

            For instant, 97 percent of how many?  There are thousands upon thousands of scientists in the world, many of whom might consider themselves “climate-change scientists” in one form or the other.  Based on Mr. Cross’ statement, he could be talking about 100 scientists, 97 of whom agree with his statement.  Worse, he might just be repeating what he’s heard others claim with no attempt to actually determine the truth of the statement or the basis for the claim.  In my experience, it is a rare thing for 97% of people to agree on much of anything, even when they’re inclined to agree with each other.  Thus, the claim sounds awfully suspicious from the start.

         What does “climate-change scientist” mean?  Does this mean someone who is sitting at a computer analyzing data and creating computer generated forecast models?  Does this mean someone who is simply gathering, reviewing, and commenting on already existing data about the climate?  Does this mean every one of these scientists has a Ph.D.?  Are they chemists, biologists, physicists, meteorologists . . . what?  Who are they and why should I trust this alleged 97%?

            The claim of passing muster to get into a peer reviewed journal sounds impressive until you find out that recently folks have written articles that passed muster even though the articles simply strung together a  bunch of scientific sounding words but had no real point and had no actual scientific meaning.  Which journals?  Who was doing the reviewing?  What were the biases and prejudices of the reviewers who passed on these so-called 97%?  If the reviewers are only looking for articles that prove global warming is man-made, then they’re likely to reject articles that claim otherwise, even if the science behind the articles suggest otherwise.

               Then there are factual problems that seem to continually plague global warming advocacy.  As one for instance, June 2014 was the coldest June ever recorded at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station.  Moreover, it was the second coldest monthly average ever recorded behind only September 1953.  It seems awfully peculiar to me that Antarctica would be experiencing record cold during global warming, but I’m sure there’s a logical, Al Gore approved explanation.  If you read French you can go to Meteo France to read the story.  Otherwise, you can go to wattsupwiththat,  a website that bills itself as the world’s most viewed website on global warming and climate change.

        In the guise of arguing based on something substantive, Mr. Cross simply throws out unsubstantiated statistics, the names of “bad” people associated with questioning global warming dogma (religious conservatives, the Koch brothers, and Republicans), and concludes global warming is just like cigarette smoking – scientifically proven to be bad for your health.  Mr. Cross then compares global warming questioners to smokers.  Apparently, both in his mind are equally idiotic.  The difference, though, is like my grandma used to tell my dad about smoking – you might as well suck on a car’s tailpipe.  Even long before the science, my grandma understood just how stupid smoking was.  You don’t need to be a scientist to see the obvious cause and effect of the stupidity of smoking cigarettes.  Global warming isn’t so clear.

            Is global warming happening?  Maybe, maybe not.  Are humans adding to global warming?  Maybe, maybe not.  Is global warming a bad thing?  Maybe, maybe not.  Mr. Cross, however, uses sloppy tactics in his effort to convince: glittering generalities, guilt by association, and bad analogies.  Why not, rather, offer up a rational, substance based argument?

            My biggest problem with global warming is the very fact that people claim they know what to do about something that is, well, global.  As sin-stained human beings, we often find our days filled with plenty of evil, much of it often self-inflicted, so that we’re just glad to get through each day without disaster.  Something on a global scale seems awfully difficult to comprehend when I still don’t always understand my wife of almost 30 years!  When I read about global warming, I’d like more than the kind of vacuous arguments offered by Mr. Cross.  I could be convinced, but most of the time I’m treated to “the earth has a temperature” kind of nonsense spouted by Al Gore and I’m told I’m an idiot for failing to believe.   Sorry, but pesky facts, like last winter’s polar vortex in the United States, and the record Antarctic lows make me wonder.

            If the solutions offered by Al Gore and crowd didn’t seem so obviously determined to create a world controlled by a few elites who “know better” I might feel more comfortable with global warming alarmism.  However, tactics like those Mr. Cross offers suggest someone more interested in making political points and, frankly, pushing power in a certain direction, than actually doing something meaningful about the alleged problem.  Seems to me that if we have a true problem, then seeking solutions from all concerned makes sense.  However, the global warming crowd, like Mr. Cross, demand that only their solutions are appropriate.  If you violate the dogma that we need to stop using coal, oil, and nuclear power, you get a scarlet D (for denier) on your breast.  It doesn’t matter how sensible or reasonable your suggestions might be.  You are only allowed one opinion in this instance: global warming is real and we must stop using coal, oil, and nuclear energy immediately if not sooner.

            As a Christian, I believe we should exercise proper stewardship over the resources God has placed at our disposal.  Stewardship, however, means using resources wisely, not ignoring resources out of fear.  Why is it not possible to use coal, oil, and nuclear power wisely?  If we can find better, more efficient ways to produce energy, wonderful.  In the meantime, should we not seek to use what we have, and use it well?  If the earth is warming, perhaps it makes more sense to figure how to best harness that reality than claim we need to try to stop it.  Seems to me a simplistic idea, but doesn’t a warmer earth mean longer growing seasons for vegetables, for instance?  So let's grow more food and feed a hungry world.  Doesn’t it also mean less people freezing to death in the winter?  So we'll use less natural gas, oil, and electricity heating our homes.  Aren’t those good things?

            If global warming is real, the arguments people like Mr. Cross are making only serve to undermine the claim.  Make real arguments and guys like me, who are wearing a scarlet D on their chest, might come around.  In the meantime, I’ll avoid sucking on the tailpipes of any cars but I’ll keep driving my SUV.  Thanks, Grandma.