Be Not Afraid: Global Warming Delusions

Wall Street Journal: Be Not Afraid: Global Warming Delusions

Article by Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century" (Replica Books, 2001).

The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.

..........

You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life--I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.

I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.

..........

Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.

We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes--wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.

My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.

..........

For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.

At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science--even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.

Comments

[Rob]

Michael:

I read a comment you made recently on Scott McKnight's Jesus Creed blog. In one paragraph you wrote:

"Genesis makes it clear that we were placed here not merely as forest rangers but as stewards to bring creation to its full potential. The biblical story begins in a garden and ends in a city. Cities are, among other things, biblical symbols of human governance and commerce. We were made material beings to act as co-regents in a material world and economic work is a profound expression of our humanity and spirituality. (Jesus came into the world and spent most of his years engaged in economic production.) Yet where are the books, lecturers, and conferences in the emerging conversation that have human work as integral to the core of our spirituality? Apart from the pious calls to simple living and living in environmentally friendly ways, I would suggest that such consideration is largely absent. In that sense, I think the Emerging Conversation is still captive to the dualism of its Evangelical roots."

Well written and well said. Insightful and deep.

Why do you not write more on your own blog? It seems you tend to major in linking, other than the book series you do.

I'd be very interested in more of your original comments and writing, regardless of what that professor told you years ago.

Rob

[Michael W. Kruse]

Wow, thanks Rob for that affirmation!

I'm going to get back to some of more original stuff dealing with economics type stuff. I got myself sucked into the black hole of my "Household of God" series from which I hope to emerge next week. I've got some posts dealing with common Christian economic falacies and the seven sins of biblical interpretation (borrowing from Kenneth Bailey.

If your interested about theology and economics, then you might try my "Theology and Economics (Series)" category which is more or less a book with, with an index to all the posts.

[samlcarr]

Michael, I agree with Rob. I do think that you should share more of your thoughts with us on economics and the KoG. I live in a country that dabbled with Socialism for many decades after independence. We were leaders in non-alignment and in many ways that meant being much more closely allied to the Russian Communist Machine.

I can see ways in which some aspects of Socialism are good. As an economic system too it has some plus points. There are also a slew of negatives. We are also transitioning very fast into something much more capitalistic, with freer markets and less regulation and then there's globalisation...

We, the Christians here fail to analyse in the light of scripture and in the light of who God is and what he wants us to do, how we are to fit in to this system and where we are to stand apart and struggle for change.

I wish I knew more of economics than I do in order to help me on this journey of questioning, but I don't. So, it's up to folks like you who hold the Kingdom principles in one hand and know enough of economics to help lead is forward.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks for this comment Sam. I've been itching to get back to economics and work related stuff. I expect to move that direction next week.