A group of evangelical Christians is taking to the airwaves in Florida to urge Republican Gov. Rick Scott to take action on climate change, arguing that it, too, is a “pro-life” issue.
“I’m pro-life, and I’m pro-family,” says one female voice featured in the ad, sponsored by the Evangelical Environmental Network. “And I do believe we should do all we can to protect our environment. It was given to us by God.”
“Climate change is real. It endangers the health of our children, worsens poverty throughout the world, and threatens our economy,” says a male voiceover. “Call Governor Rick Scott and tell him as pro-life Christians we believe care for God’s creation is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. Tell Governor Scott now is the time to act to curb climate change.”
Scott has been a target of a number of campaigns asking him to acknowledge the reality of climate change. Earlier this year, Scott avoided a question from a reporter about whether he believes climate change is happening, after previously saying he did not believe it was. A group of climate scientists recently organized a meeting with Scott to encourage him to take action on climate, and billionaire investor Tom Steyer’s group NextGen Climate Action recently launched an ark tour to call him out on the issue. Scott is currently up for reelection in the state, and is facing former Gov. Charlie Crist in a close race.
Evangelical Christians have also been working to convince Scott. The latest ad is running on Christian radio stations throughout the state.
If we are directed to be stewards of the earth, what these Christians are saying makes a great deal of sense. If climate change is real, and many folks believe it very much is, then shouldn’t we all concern ourselves with making the earth as habitable as possible?
All too often, some of those on the right snicker and carry on over any suggestion that we do anything pro-environment. They act like “tree hugging” is a nasty word and those who do want to conserve the Earth are a batch of sissies. This mentality needs to be extinguished.
“Climate change is real. It endangers the health of our children, worsens poverty throughout the world, and threatens our economy,” says a male voiceover.
What worsens poverty is the prevention of access to inexpensive energy, prevention of an increased GDP due to a growing economy because local industries fail to develop.
Global warming has not happened for over 17 years.
There are MUCH greater threats to the planet that need addressing. Conserving aquifers. Stop overfishing. Cut pollution. Instill a sense of conservation in poverty stricken areas and in China.
Tree hugging has become a “nasty word” because too many environmentalists are watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. They are socialists and communists using the green movement to advance their causes. Free enterprise is evil in their eyes.
Seriously, are you still scared of commies? Cargo [looking askance] 90% of the scientists on record disagree with you.
Tree hugging was invented to disparage people who care for the environment. Some people go way overboard. Most people are fairly normal. They want parks, open spaces, and for corporate America to not decimate the landscape.
Ever seen the aftermath of strip mining?
@Moon-howler
Didn’t say that I was scared. I oppose those that support communism.
And 90% of scientists don’t agree on anything. Even those scientists supporting the warming….admit that there has been no warming since 1998. They are all scrambling to explain why and why their theory should not be tossed out.
Yes…I’ve seen the aftermath of strip mining. And those strip mines are much safer than risking the lives of miners inside those tunnels. Either way we WILL get the needed minerals. Either way…that dirt goes somewhere.
Notice…. I’m all for conservation. Strip mines need to reduce the damage or fix it as best that they can. As should any industry. I don’t have a problem with that. Let’s fix THAT instead of worrying about an increase in plant food that may or may not have an effect on warming.
I ve only known a few people in my life who really support communism. I have never seen a connect between those folks and environmentalists.
Yes, 90% of environmental scientists to support the major climate change theory. More than that.
Strip mining decimates the environment…not just the sides of mountains but also rivers, creeks, and poisons the water.
There are also other variations. I haven’t yet figured out why pipelines need to run through national parks. That is unacceptable.
At one time, many conservatives were environmentalists, before the GOP came wholly under the control of big coal, oil and gas interests. Not that a lot of individual democratic politicians aren’t also under corporate control- they are, but the democratic party is generally less dominated by dirty energy.
I doubt that a few evangelical environmentalists can break the dirty energy stranglehold on the GOP, but more power to them!
It’s no wonder that Floridians are becoming concerned about climate change-they have more at risk than many others in terms of land lost to sea level rise and damage from ocean acidification and warming.
The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. It’s gettin’ warm out there!
Absolutely. Facts is facts.
The temperature record goes back only to about 1850, so temperature records (warm and cold) really are not all that impressive. They definitely are not statistically significant in terms of the very long time scales for some natural variations (e.g. the deep ocean). Given that the great pause in warming has caused the IPCC to lower its estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2, the timescale for significant human-induced warming is now on the order of 100 years, which is only a factor of two different than the length of the temperature record.
@middleman
Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. With no change.
Yes..the 12 warmest have occurred since 1998…… which means that they are within the last 18 years. It has not cooled…it merely has had no statistically significant warming since 1998. As per the warming scientists.
The current sea level rise of 3mm/year is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.
The 12 warmest years in the past 18, but no significant warming? Really??
The INSTRUMENTAL temperature record only goes back to 1850. Tree ring widths, coral growth, isotope variations in ice cores, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, fossils, ice cores, borehole temperatures, and glacier length records go back 2000 years.
All these indicators point in the same direction. Every year brings more certainty regarding human-induced climate change.
I think Cargo is just in denial.
Facts are facts, and they should be processed with an objective and open mind as they come to light– no politics necessary. Thanks for sharing.
@middleman
That’s right. The instrumental data record goes back to 1850. Proxy temperature data have been shown to be subject to very large errors. My acceptance of such analyses was much higher before results were put forth that suppressed the temperature peak associated with the Medieval Warm Period.
The only “facts” are the trends from the instrumental record, but which is not statistically significant. The other fact is that a pause in warming exists in which no one has a clue when it will end. It could easily last decades longer in which case significant human-induced warming could be delayed significantly longer than a century.
It seems to me that there are much pressing problems that affect the health and welfare of our fellow citizens (like containing Ebola and preventing beheadings).
Sad thing that these “experts” will be dead when it comes to fruition. Maybe. And they don’t fish. Fisherman know.
Fisherman and gardeners know….
You can see the tide turning – when a politician states – Well, I am not a Scientist…..he/she is looking to CYA.
Regarding the so-called “pause” in warming, this is actually a slower rate of increase- not a pause- in part due to the very warm El-Nino year of 1998. Although the RATE OF INCREASE in surface temperatures slowed during this period, increasing heat has been trapped in the oceans, at lower depths than it was previously.
I find it interesting (and a little scary) that laypersons increasingly feel qualified to re-interpret science and contradict actual scientists in many areas, from vaccinations to climate change to evolution. Anecdotal data is given the same weight as scientific studies, data is cherry-picked to reach pre-concieved conclusions, offending scientists are attacked (in the press and legally), etc. One only needs to look back to the “cigarettes causing cancer” wars in the 70’s and 80’s to see the blueprint for what’s happening now with climate change deniers.
Some only want to accept the instrumental record as “fact” because that more closely supports their position. I would bet that the instrumental record is at least as subject to errors as all the other indicators, but I depend on the actual peer-reviewed science to decide that.
Middleman, I am siding with you on this one.
How did that denial on the cigarettes work out for a lot of people? I have heard all sorts of people deny that one. Hell, I believed it and still puffed away.
It’s pretty clear that using the scientific method, climate scientists have established that the earth is warming and human activity is at least part of the reason. What we do about that is an open question, but many of the initiatives that would slow warming would also be good for the environment and human-kind in general (and the economy). Coal mining (and burning) is a disaster for air quality, water quality, tourism AND global warming, for example. The areas in West Virginia that DON’T have mountaintop removal have a much better, more diversified economy. Energy conservation can have a huge effect on energy consumption if promoted correctly. Solar rooftops, solar glass, passive solar, higher vehicle fuel economy, telecommuting, better land planning are just some of the areas that affect global warming AND other serve other purposes and are eminently doable.
The “debate” over global warming is really moot- there are lots of other reasons to do all we can to protect and heal the environment and diversify and strengthen our economy and provide jobs.
Middleman brings up an important point…addressing global warming helps so many environmental, energy and economic areas, it is worth doing it even if there is no global warming.
Here’s the gospel truth – and history will bear this out.
We should be polluting less.
But to create this panic about “global warming’ is counter-productive. Because we don’t really have any idea about whether the Earth’s going to warm up over any particular period of time. In fact, it seems to be cooling right now.
It is or should be a crime the way authorities collude to cherry pick data and to claim that future warming is a known fact.
Meanwhile the CO2 going onto the oceans is changing the ecosystem, the jellyfish are dominating the fish. There are a lot of reasons not to pollute, and/or to figure out how to clean up after ourselves. The political decision to reach for ‘social justice” by propogating a “global warming” theory, based on about 100 years of measurement – which hasn’t held up for the last 14 of them – was a mistake in every way. The left should step back from it.
It offends me primarily bacause science has been corrupted by politics.
Science has always been corrupted by politics. How can you forget Galileo’s difficulties? The Church only “apologized” about 15 years ago.
No, the Earth isn’t the center of the universe. How about Columbus? His difficulties were all political. Scopes Monkey Trial? All about science.
I don’t think it is the science side that is turning climate change political. For the record, scientists are a jealous bunch, like every other “industry.”
I agree with your entire post, but the last statement particularly resonates with me. It is impossible to separate any human enterprise from politics at some level, but science in the last 20 years has become overly influenced by politics. This development is sad, because the biases introduced by politics have slowed the growth of knowledge in some fields.
How about the space program? Don’t you think that has been heavily influenced by politics?
Here, here Kelly.
And in this case, politics has corrupted our entire vocabulary about, and common knowledge of, pollution and likely effects.
@Moon-howler
Absolutely.
This is amazing- Rick and Kelly, you’ve been completely co-opted by the big dirty energy interests, seemingly willingly, and you don’t even know it. You have it exactly right about corrupt politics, but exactly wrong about who is doing the corrupting. You refuse to simply follow the money to see who benefits the most from continued corruption and obfuscation regarding global warming- those who make the most money from the dirty old way. You think scientists have all banded together to use false science to promote a world agenda of socialism and re-distribution versus huge conglomerates working together through politicians to protect their trillions in profits. Which scenario makes more sense? Who has peer-reviewed science backing them up and who relies on “scientists” backed by Exxon-Mobil? The data on global warming makes it more certain every day, but if you don’t want to accept science, at least acknowledge human nature!
Rick, where do you think the CO2 in the oceans that you acknowledge is coming from?
The scientific record, based on 2000 years of data- not 100 as you say, shows that the earth has warmed, and continues to warm. Again, THERE IS NO COOLING, there is a slow-down in the rate of warming, due mostly to the El-Nino effect in the late 1990’s. Read the scientific, peer-reviewed papers- there are hundreds of them! Are all these scientists “in” on this social justice movement you speak of and somehow falsifying the data, along with the scientists who review their studies? Were the cigarette companies right with their “data” that cigarettes don’t cause cancer?
@middleman
Rather than arguing with you, I will offer up a peer-reviewed study from applied mathematicians which casts significant doubt on the temperature trends derived from climate proxies. Studies like these are usually ignored by the IPCC.
http://www.blakemcshane.com/Papers/aoas_mcshanewyner.pdf
It does not matter how many scientists have previously used a technique–it only takes one paper to prove that it has significant limitations. That is why the idea of scientific consensus is nonsensical.
Protecting the environment is the Christian thing to do.
“Which scenario makes more sense? ”
I don’t need any lobbyist from Bug energy or from Al Gore’s energized stable to tell me how to interpret science. Everyone should be able to interpret the evidence for themselves.
When the scientific community is caught red-handed colluding on how to draw hockey-stick shaped graphs that imply warming, when a straightforward reading doesn’t necessitate alarmism, enough said. if the Earth were consistently warming, we would all be able to agree on it. The left sees ghosts that aren’t there – “Big Energy” diminating our existence.
Not really…EVERYBODY isn’t capable of interpreting evidence for themselves. There is a great deal of skill set involved.
Is it warmer now than 2000 years ago? probably in some regions yes and in some no. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/
Most global warming advocates are exactly analogous to right-wingers who wanted to invade Iraq because they “had WMD”.
They are psychologically driven to be heros – to “save the world” through bravery. Their social cause is really their own id projected onto selective evidence.
We’re at a phase now when it’s obvious the Earth isn’t getting warmer, and that Al Gore’s predictions aren’t likely. But still, the global warming people trudge on looking for the hidden heat (“it’s in the Atlantic Ocean!” “No, it’s in the Pacific!” “No, I’ve extrapolated past temperatures differently and it was cooler in the past!”). Very much like Bush’s minions scrambling around Iraq 10 years ago looking at centrifuges and high school textbooks, scrounging around to find a hint of WM.D. (“They have it to Syria!” “No, they buried it underground!”)
Al Gore isn’t a scientist either and while I like him as a politician, I don’t like his movie. It bored me to death.
However, there is a happy medium. All this stuff is still being sorted out. Much of the climate theory will probably be tweaked, same as we are still tweaking most of accepted science–even the tried and true stuff. Like I am not going to ever change my mind about Pluto being a planet.
“The scientific record, based on 2000 years of data”
Funny….. most of the “data” that shows an upward trend is less than 100 years old.
And, until 1850…we were in the Little Ice Age.
And within that 2000 years, we’ve had periods that were warmer than we are now, with no damage. In fact, those times were times of human advancement and growth.
“It’s pretty clear that using the scientific method, climate scientists have established that the earth is warming and human activity is at least part of the reason.”
Actually, the climate scientists refuse to develop their theory as falsifiable. Whenever a problem with the theory is shown, they move the goal posts. Whenever a prediction fails, they ignore it. Their standard reply to criticism is “Because Shut up!” Too many refuse to reveal their methodology and raw data. Mann is infamous with that issue. He has no problem calling other people frauds, but sued when it was applied to him. THEN he refused discovery and delayed the trials. Mark Steyn has counter-sued for a minimum of 20 million dollars. He won’t be able to evade discovery in THAT trial.
I guess my question is, why do you feel you are more accurate than someone with Mann’s academic credentials?
You seem to be too wrapped up in the politics of the issue.
This is an interesting article when it comes to modern day politics in science:
http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow
Congratulations, Kelly, you found a study to back up your contention, and it WAS peer-reviewed! Unfortunately for your contention, it didn’t stand up to that peer review: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/SMR_AOASDiscussion11.pdf
Even if your study could hold up to peer review, that would only involve a part of the science behind global warming.
Scientific consensus is the very foundation of scientific progress. The scientific process involves a scientist making a discovery and others trying to repeat it or refute it. When the discovery holds up to that stringent scrutiny, it is accepted by the scientific community. Vaccinations, disease treatment, managing the hole in the ozone layer, identifying global warming and much, much more were all made possible by scientific consensus. To deny the necessity of scientific consensus is to deny science.
Yes, for the past 6 years or so: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html
That is an incredibly slanted, pointless article. Historically, NASA has always been buffeted by politics, either favorably or unfavorably. Go back to Kennedy. That pretty much says it all….forward to the future.
Most of the domestic politics boil down to money.
Globally, probably what hurt NASA the most was the disintegration of the USSR. The competition just wasn’t there.
This article, while interesting, discounts the dog-eat-dog world of academia and science. In my experience, scientists are more than happy to poke holes in other scientists’ work. They hardly function as a lap dog society.
Having said that, I would love to see more conservatives represented in academia and the scientific community. What’s stopping them? Please don’t respond that they won’t be accepted- if their research can hold up it will speak for itself.
As Moon stated, the space program has been influenced by politics for a lot more than 6 years. It was originally conceived in response to political pressure from the Soviet Union (think Sputnick). The whole “space race” was a political PR effort to establish scientific dominance and deliver a philosophical victory over the Soviets. And it worked.
Of course, politicization of the space program has no relation to the science behind global warming. The research is there for all to see- take a look! Is global warming going to kill us all tomorrow, or even have a great effect before I’m gone? Probably not, but that doesn’t change the science behind it and the need to do what we can to limit it and at the same time help the environment and economy in the process.
@middleman
The purpose of the paper by Schmidt, Mann, and Rutherford (SMR; the paper you linked above) was to defend against the criticism from McShane and Wyner (in the paper I linked above) about the methodology that resulted in the famous Hockey Stick. McShane and Wyner developed a model to demonstrate the large differences in temperature trends that result from small changes in method or assumptions. The hockey stick appeared in very few cases of their model.
In the paper you linked, SMR asserted that their techniques/data selection methods have to be followed in order to get the right answer. In so doing, they implicitly supported the conclusion by McShane and Wyner that analyses with temperature proxies are highly dependent on the exact method used. This does not exactly inspire confidence in the SMR result–one would expect an accurate technique to be much more robust. Having read both papers, I find McShane and Wyner to be much more convincing.
@middleman
“Is global warming going to kill us all tomorrow….?”
Probably not since there hasn’t been any warming for over 17 years.
Other than there has been.
@middleman
Here is the detailed, peer-reviewed rebuttal to Schmidt, Mann and Rutherford.
http://www.blakemcshane.com/Papers/aoas_rejoinder.pdf
You should read this — it makes an even stronger case against the Hockey Stick than the original article. These guys know what they are doing and are quite independent. They perform statistical research for a variety of different applications such as baseball and economics, and so, unlike Mann et al, they do not have a professional or financial stake in the outcome. As you mention above, follow the money ….
So now we have a he-said-she-said situation between scientists and statisticians, Kelly- we’ll have to wait to see how it all turns out with the next rebuttal.
But keep in mind that this is just a small portion of part of the background science supporting global warming in play here. It really doesn’t change the preponderance of the evidence for the underlying scientific conclusion.
It also doesn’t change the point that the “debate” is really moot. We can do the easy things that are good for the economy and the environment in general no matter what one’s position on global warming is.
@Moon-howler
Even the proponents of the theory state that there has been no warming of the surface or atmosphere for over 17 years. They are scrambling to describe where the “missing heat” has gone.
There has been a pause in the rate of increase in warming for about 15 years, which has happened on other occasions since 1910. The overall warming trend remains the same.