P.I.G. to Global Warming

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon. … The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” The story is from Newsweek. The year was 1975 and the threat was global cooling. A year later the magazine reported that “this trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” But then global cooling went out of style and Newsweek and other media outlets went on to discuss other topics. Three decades later the same overstatements and hysteria are being broadcast about global warming. I have read a good deal about this topic and even took the time to read Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. As a fairly rational fellow, I thought it would be wise to look for dissenting views, for books that might strike a balance. To my surprise I found that very little had been written to refute the notion of global warming, and this despite knowing that many scientists are far from convinced. Eventually I stumbled across The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). This is the latest entry in the Politically Incorrect Guide series, a series that has already covered Islam, Intelligent Design, Feminism and other issues our society faces.

This guide is written by Christopher C. Horner. He is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an acknowledged expert on global warming legislation and regulation, and has spoken before Senate committees and the European Parliament. He seems fairly well qualified to write on the topic (especially when we consider that the main proponent of global warming is a politician whose college level science grades continue to be a source of embarrassment to him). Horner’s thesis is evident from the book’s opening lines. “Al Gore and his friends—social, corporate, and media elites, Europeans, and UN aficionados—declare ‘global warming’ an unprecedented global crisis. Hyped as an environmental nightmare, global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist’s dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish ‘global governance’ (Jacques Chirac’s words in praise of the Kyoto Protocol) with strict control over corporate actions and individual behavior.”

In the author’s opinion, global warming provides the perfect means of establishing global controls and global governance. It is inherently anti-capitalist and its pedigree is more red than green. “Environmental causes always include—and often are primarily—campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty.” He goes on to attempt to prove this thesis through the first three chapters. From there he dedicates four chapters to refuting what he terms “the convenient lies”—the pillars of those who believe in global warming. He shows that climate is always changing so that the earth is always either getting warmer or colder, disputes the belief that humans are responsible for anything more than a fraction of the world’s carbon dioxide production, proves that there is anything but consensus among scientists about whether or not global warming is an imminent threat, shows that global warming is not an earth-wide phenomenon and how men like Al Gore have deliberately tampered with evidence showing this, and proves that humans have not caused the natural disasters that have recently stunned the world (with Hurricane Katrina being the one most fresh in people’s minds). From here he dedicates three chapters to “The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming” and includes a full chapter to discussing Al Gore’s book and film. The final two chapters show the cost America would face if it bought into the alarmist agenda, and especially if it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In short, he provides evidence that global warming is not the terrifying spectacle many people would have us believe and that we should be awfully careful before we buy into the hype.

Despite the complexity of the topic, I found that the author did quite a good job of making it understandable. There were a few spots where my eyes began to glaze over, but on the whole I enjoyed reading the book. The series’ trademark humor and “For Dummies” style helped get me through the tedious parts. Still, I had two complaints about the book. First, while it is obvious that the author is not “against” environmentalism as something less than a wide-ranging political ideology, it would have been nice to see him expend greater effort in affirming the necessity of caring for this world even if we do not buy into the hype. And second, the book could have used a bit more effort from the editorial crew. At times I almost felt that the book had bee rushed out the door in order to put it on store shelves while there is still a market for it. After all, if global warming follows the pattern of previous environmental hype, it will not be long before this book is relegated to the bargain bins. In fact, I hope this proves to be the case!

One thing this book helped me realize is just how complex a subject global warming is and how few people are truly qualified, trained and equipped to make the long-term predictions that are the source of so much hysteria. The book also reaffirmed what I already knew—that this issue simply cannot be separated from politics. There is clearly a great deal of ideology and politics underlying the hysteria. If we seek to know who is behind the hysteria, it seems to me that we need only follow the money trail. If the hysteria continues and nations like Canada and the United States buy into it, countless billions of dollars will leave North America and make their way to Europe, China and other countries that, despite being dependent on America, despise her. Someone is set to benefit from all of this hype. While I do not necessarily know who this person will be, I do know that it is not going to be the average North American consumer. You and I have a lot to lose and we ought to be sure we at least investigate the claims of those who are currently marketing the hype. The proposed “cures” for global warming are unbelievably expensive and will yield results that are absolutely pathetic (to the tune of trillions of dollars being spent to potentially reduce the earth’s temperature by an almost imperceptible .08 degrees over fifty years). The message of this book is simply that there is more to this issue that simply protecting the environment,

I love this world God has given to us and entrusted to us. I know that we have not always been faithful stewards of it and have done a great deal of damage to it. And yet I also know that there is a whole lot at stake in the discussion about human-caused global warming. This discussion goes far deeper than its proponents would have us believe. Books like this one, while far from perfect, can at least begin to equip us to see that there is another side to the argument and to provide some balance to the hysteria we hear all around us. I am grateful that this book is available and am grateful also to see others like it slowly beginning to hit store shelves. I hope they can stem the tide.

I believe that human-caused global warming is largely nonsense and is largely driven by unbiblical, anti-God ideology. With this book review I am going on record with that belief. If I am proved wrong, feel free to laugh at me in ten or twenty years when the earth’s water levels have risen, when the air is unbreathable, when energy costs have increased exponentially and when the earth is reduced to utter ruin. Just laugh at me. I can take it. But I’ve got a feeling that twenty years from now we will have moved on to the next big problem and will have forgotten all about global warming, just like we’ve forgotten all about global cooling. And we will just keep repeating history.

Comments (63)

51
Anonymous's picture

Concerned Reader,

Do you not think that Christians who reject much of the GW science are capable of having a reasonable view of how we should take care of the environment? Why are people assuming that because there is an argument against the GW movement (the one that people like Gore espouse) that the detractors don’t care, or don’t do anything? I consider myself a conservationist because I do care for how we tend to the planet, and apply thought and action to where and how I live.

To answer your question about why we fight about how we take care of the earth, it’s simple. There are those who believe everything certain scientists say about human impact on environmental and climate change, and those who do not. There most likely would be huge economic and societal ramifications about implementing alarmist rules. That’s why.

You want Denver and LA to be smog free. Well, I imagine most every resident in those cities agree. But, I guarantee you, if you imposed effective rules to reduce smog you would potentially position LA on the verge of riots.

The question is: what can be practically applied to positively impact the environmental concerns that you are wringing your hands about? The fact is there is a progression towards better handling of the environment. The U.S. is factually a cleaner place and less polluting per capita than it was 30 years ago. We should always try to improve and be more conservation oriented, but make no mistake, the activist green movement as we currently know it has nothing to do with godly stewardship.

52
Anonymous's picture

Wonkyhead,

Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.

53
Anonymous's picture

I was just about to apologize if I was the one who you were speaking about when you said “Why would a brother hint that I may be a card-carrying commie…”, then in the very next post you mentioned “sustainable living issues.” I’ve been reading about these environmental issues and agendas for a long time - long enough to know the politics behind “sustainable living”. Sounds nice, but it’s built on a foundation I won’t mention right now again…we’ll just say - more politics.

But not for me! My foundation is the Word of God and my relationship with God through Christ. I cannot speak to the politics of certain groups who may be involved in the sustainable living “movement” (for lack of a better word), but my motivation has nothing to do with Marxist leanings. I simply do not want to leave it to them! Their ideology shouldn’t frame the debate; I am interested in bringing a Christian worldview to bear on the issue.

And just to clarify, I haven’t yet had the opportunity to do a lot of what I’ve written about…but I’d like to at some point.

Maybe that helps? :-)

Blessings!

54
Anonymous's picture

Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.

I agree totally - see, we agree on something!

Blessings to you brother.

H

55
Anonymous's picture

Those who do go to the extent of not caring because God is sovereign have no idea what it means to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. They have much bigger problems than being indifferent to environmental concerns. It’s called Hyper-Calvinism, and is a travesty.

Would you say there are comments on this blog that fit your description?I’d appreciate it if you would identify them. For I haven’t seen one that is hyper-calvinist toned.

56
Anonymous's picture

Has no one read State of Fear?Perhaps a review of Michael Crichton’s (no friend of Christendom AFAIK) brutal expose (in fictional format) of the environmental lobby’s (lack of a factual) foundation. Stay tuned for his non-fiction title on the same topic, due out this year!

I’ll eat DDT!:-)

57
Anonymous's picture

Has no one read State of Fear?

State of Confusion, more like.

58
Anonymous's picture

This is for all of the ones who believe in this Global Warming agenda. Where is your gift of faith? How many Christian scientist have to come out and deny this before you all believe? Who side are you on Al Gore and Hollywood or the real Church of Christ?

Did not last year these God hating scientist predict that the hurricane season was going to be the worst on record due to the rise in temperature? I think they did. And what were the results? It was as if God was saying I will show you man who forms the hurricanes!!!!

How many scriptures in the Old Testament say that God is the one who controls the weather. He can use if for a blessing or Judgement.

Please look at the following and think about it for a moment.

1. If God is using the warmth of the earth as Judgement, can man stop God’s judgements by being good “stewards”?

2. All of you Global Warming advocates please do the following experiment. I want you to take a glass. Fill it with water and then put ice cubes in it. Make sure you mark the water line. As the ice melts does that water line change? It shouldn’t at all because whether water is a liquid or solid it has the same “mass”. These foolish scientist who are saying that if the ice melts in the artic it will cause major flooding is rediculous. The mass never changes. There is only one way water level rise or fall and that is change in weight or mass.

3. This issue is not about being a “fatalist” or “hyper-calvinist”. Its about siding with God’s Sovereignty or siding with man and the world. It appears way too many Christians are siding with man. And although its not surprising because the Bible said it would. But whats surprising to me is that so many opinions on this particular website (which holds to the doctrines of the reformation) agree with the Global warming agenda.

59
Anonymous's picture

Donsands,

No, I haven’t seen one. Wonkyhead seemed to be alluding to that type of thinking, which does exist. I wanted to clarify what he appeared to be defining.

For Wonkyhead, I would caution not to lump reformed people who don’t say things that would align with your view of environmental/climate issues into that category. Because someone doesn’t get involved (whatever involved means) in those issues does not mean they don’t care, or aren’t effectively working on personal conservation.

BTW, it’s interesting that Witsius point out “State of Fear” I was at a study this morning and one of the guys had the book.

Oh, and Chris, not every respected scientist agrees with the site you linked to.

60
Anonymous's picture

Bah, my link didn’t work. The issue isn’t the facts that Crichton botched up, its the premise of the book. Anyway, the point is the science is suspect, and for good reason, and that political motivation to advance the beliefs is much more powerful than admitted.

Although I tend to agree with some of Chris wrote, he is tipping to the side that Wonkyhead is talking about. It sounds hyper-calvinistic. As if anyone who has concern for how we affect the environment or use energy is rejecting God’s sovereignty. That is wrong. I’m no global warming kook, but it only makes sense that we should be striving to keep the planet as healthy as possible regarding our effect on it, and that, by the way, is happening in many instances by people who are not global warming doomsayers.

61
Anonymous's picture

I don’t think my faith is suspect, although I know I can always do better in that area! I’m interested in these issues for many reasons, and taking care of the environment, of God’s handiwork, which to me is so beautiful (I am an artist, btw, so I am especially affected by images), is one reason why I’m attracted to the idea of living differently. I believe, nature and the ability to enjoy it, are gifts from God, and even though the earth in its current condition is temporary (some biblical scholars seem to think God won’t totally destroy the earth, but will, in some way, radically purify it), it is still awe-inspiring and worthy of care, if for no other reason than it is made by our Creator.

I am also interested in learning how to be less dependent on the world system. I happen to think that we may be in for a serious economic downturn in North America in the coming years, and although I know God can and will take care of us, I do not believe that SOME planning for the future flies in the face of faith OR the sovereignty of God. Certainly the Scriptures speak of goal-setting and planning in a positive light, so far as they do not attempt to thwart the will of God. And I recognize that although I may plan, God can and does what he wants, so things may yet take a different direction.

So, my husband and I (I’m a girl, btw, but of course you can’t tell from my display name) are looking into selling our house, looking seriously at building a strawbale home (quiet, extremely energy efficient, very fire resistant) as a first step. Strawbale construction was employed by early settlers on the the plains (trees were scarce) and some are still standing and in use today. They are made from what every farmer produces so much of every year - waste - in the form of straw, as opposed to trees, which take many years to grow and reach the size where they are useable.

We have other plans as well and I don’t want to use up space here outlining them - but suffice it to say we want to live simply, with as little waste as possible, as inexpensively as we can, with an eye toward using resources that are easily and quickly replaceable.

There is nothing in this that stands in opposition to God!

62
Anonymous's picture

Wonkyhead,

Good for you! (and I mean that). If your convictions lie there, then may God be glorified by your actions. The key is that when we have what I call peripheral convictions in how we live that we never place them in a superior place than commands of much greater importance (e.g. Mk 12:30-31 or Mt 28:19), or demand them from other believers.

Blessings to you,Ron

63
Anonymous's picture

Ron,

The key is that when we have what I call peripheral convictions in how we live that we never place them in a superior place than commands of much greater importance (e.g. Mk 12:30-31 or Mt 28:19), or demand them from other believers.”

Excellent post and excellent point. Where were you during the “American Idol” debate a week or two ago? I sure could’ve used you. I argued your same point (though not as concisely as you did) and was told by several people on here (not to name any names, ahem, www._?_?_?_.com) that my argument regarding peripherals was absolutely absurd.

Either way. Just so that my perspective can be clear, I am a Christian who leans a bit to the left on some of the issues, global warming being one of them. I do feel it is unfortunate that global warming is a matter of right v. left, and I do dread that people are making the anti-capitalist connection. (After all, when were Christians mandated to be pro-capitalistic? I’m not saying Jesus was a socialist, but there were certainly more social implications to his teachings than there were profit-motive implications… I digress)

However, I do STRONGLY disagree with people like Vice President Al Gore when they say “Global warming is a moral issue.” He’s wrong. Dead wrong. Despite how urgent and serious the threat of global climate change becomes, we cannot redefine morality in order to perscribe more meaning. This is just as rotten as when people say that it is our moral obligation, as Christians, to vote Republican.

Any attempt at redefining morality to serve a purpose, regardless of how noble the cause, is anti-discourse, anti-intellectual, anti-truth, and anti-God.