Most of my friends and the people that I'm surrounded by on a daily basis are politically conservative. Most of them probably think I'm liberal, primarily because I often critique conservative perspectives. However, though I can't be sure, I get the feeling that I would do exactly the opposite if most of my friends happened to be liberal. I take it as a God-given gift that I am often able to help people see other perspectives. Socrates is a personal hero of mine.
And I have to admit, when it comes to politics, I tend to be extremely moderate, probably to a fault. I can't help it; I am thoroughly attracted to the idea that there must be some better way of framing most political issues than the tired old conservative vs. liberal paradigms.
Thus, when I approach the issue of global warming, I really want to find some middle ground between the conventional conservative and liberal positions. And maybe this desire colors my vision a little bit; maybe one of these sides really is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong. I'm not ruling out the possibility. However, as long as I can reasonably do so, I will continue to try to consider the strengths and weaknesses of all the various arguments that are presented. (And yes, I do realize I'm speaking of global warming as a political issue, rather than a science issue. It's a sad but true fact that that's what it has become. More on that later.)
So here's my real thoughts on global warming:
1) The evidence is NOT conclusive. And, surprisingly enough to many of the skeptics, most scientists AREN'T claiming that it is. Science has learned its lessons over the years. It takes overwhelming, undeniable evidence for scientists to come to a consensus that a certain hypothesis is proven to be true. And with global warming, that just hasn't happened yet. It doesn't mean that evidence isn't there. It is. There is indeed a consensus that the evidence is currently pointing towards global warming being real, and that it is at least partly related to human activity. But there's more work to be done, more measuring, more testing, more debating. And contrary to popular misconception, most scientists simply AREN'T asserting that human-caused global warming is absolute fact. (Though, there are some people who are saying that, but I'll get to them in a second.)
A century or two ago, many scientists thought that there was little left in the world to discover. That Newton had pretty much mapped out the underlying fabric of the Universe, and all that was left to do was to make more precise measurements. Then Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, et. al. came around and flipped that all upside-down. Scientists today know better. It's part of being a good scientist to know that any given hypothesis or theory can be seriously called into question by some new discovery or idea that no one had accounted for previously.
2) The scientific discussion of global warming has been co-opted by highly-influential, politically-motivated people. It's hardly possible anymore to have a discussion about global warming that isn't somehow tainted by the left or right leanings of the involved parties. Real scientists, unfortunately, don't have as prominent a role in the public forum as do pundits and politicians. The people who are influencing public opinion on the science of global warming the most are people who are . . . guess what . . . NOT SCIENTISTS! We are being "educated" about this subject by people on TV who have NO CREDENTIALS for such a task. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Then again, why go and spend all the time required to read something academic when I can just have my pre-existing opinion affirmed by that really confident-sounding guy on TV?
This goes for both sides of the debate. As I was saying earlier, scientists are not overwhelmingly claiming that global warming is a scientifically airtight theory. However, there are SOME politicians and even SOME politically-motivated scientists who are. I, for one, do not believe that we should act in such a way as if the most alarming of the reports are true. Let's continue to fund research and act gradually as we get more information. The people who act as though there's simply not a single reason to doubt global warming are just as guilty of unwarranted extremism as those who act as though there's not a single reason to believe it and that it's a vast conspiracy.
3) The recent scandal involving certain scientists (actually, primarily just one scientist named Phil Jones) is not sufficient evidence that the whole thing is a hoax. For one thing, what the man said and did is being blown way out of proportion by the conservative media. Check out these 2 links here and here for two different sides of the issue.
Regardless, if a scandal regarding a single individual or a relatively small group of individuals is sufficient to discredit an entire idea or movement that has lots of other evidence for it, Christianity would have been discredited a LONG, LONG time ago, before it ever even reached Rome and Emperor Constantine. This is not a fair method of assessment.
4) Snowstorms are not evidence against global warming. Short-term fluctuations do not accurately represent long-term trends. I might as well trim my beard and then present its recent decrease in length as evidence that it's not growing.
5) Finally, while the jury is still out on global warming, I have trouble seeing how it could possibly be a bad thing for us to reduce carbon emissions, clean up our energy, etc. All the people with strong anti-environmental views still enjoy breathing clean air and drinking clean water. Of all people, Christians should be leading the way in this area. We are the ones who know that God gave man dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1). Dominion does not entail a right to use and abuse as we see fit. This kind of mentality is akin to sexual immorality--taking a gift that God has given and getting what we want from it, without any appreciation for the true purpose of the gift or its ultimate Source. The belief that the activity of the billions of human beings on our planet has absolutely zero negative effect on our environment is not only willfully ignorant, but also unbiblical. God gave us a job. He gave us a domain and set us up as rulers; inasmuch as we mishandle this responsibility, we have become tyrants.
