|
Newsletter (July 2, 2010)
Above the FoldA Biblical Response to One of the Greatest Deceptions of Our Day
Twelve DVD lectures by leading Christian thinkers
A groundbreaking new book by Christian physicist Dr. James Wanliss
Without doubt one of the greatest threats to society and the church today is the multifaceted environmentalist movement. Although its reach is often subtle, there isn’t an aspect of life that it doesn’t seek to force into its own mold.
- Environmentalism has become a new religion.
- Environmentalism’s policies are devastating to the world’s poor.
- Environmentalism threatens the sanctity of human life.
- Environmentalism is targeting our youth.
- Environmentalism’s vision is global.
Resisting the Green Dragon takes its cue from James 4:7, “Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Learn how the Bible powerfully confronts environmental fears and how—in God’s wise design—people and nature can thrive together.
This explosive DVD series contains twelve half-hour sessions along with a leader’s guide containing discussion questions and suggested practical applications suitable for churches, Sunday schools, families, classrooms, and small groups.
The book by Dr. James Wanliss delves into the depths of environmentalism’s world view, theology, ethics, and politics, citing leading environmental thinkers and activists, exposing their anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, anti-Christian doctrines, and offering a sound, comprehensive, Biblical alternative understanding of humanity’s relationship to Earth—and to Earth’s Creator.
Go to http://resistingthegreendragon.com/ now to take advantage of pre-publication discount for these outstanding learning tools!In This Issue
Featured- The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun
- Spanish Solar Company Mails Skeptic Scientist Dismantled Bomb
Science & Ecology- Vegetative Response to Climate Change: Celebrate, Don't Fret
- Evidence of Elevated Sea Surface Temperatures Under the BP Oil Slick
Economics & Energy- Gone with the Wind
- Blowout Prevention Act--or Oil-Production Prevention Act?
Religion & Ethics- Creation Care: Depends on One's Gifts
- The Good Driller Award
Politics & Debate- The Distraction of Climate Alarmism: BP as Environmental Role Model
- Making Good Science Decisions
Briefly Noted
Meet the Critics: Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D.
Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
Featuredby Roy W. Spencer
Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Author, DrRoySpencer.com; Author, Climate Confusion and The Great Global Warming Blunder
June 22, 2010
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”. . . .
The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.
There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.
As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.
But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade. . . .
. . . anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.
So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago. . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Scientific Consensus Redux
by Ronald Bailey
Science Correspondent, Reason
June 29, 2010Back to top by Patrick Gallagher
Editor, GreenWatchAmerica
June 25, 2010
A Spanish scientist was sent a dismantled bomb in the mail following the publishing of his study which took a hard look at the damage Spain's green jobs program has done to the Spanish economy.
President Obama, in promoting his own green jobs program, has often pointed out Spain's green jobs program as a template. This spring, he had to back off that stand, as a study was released that showed Spain's green jobs program to be a phenomenally inefficient use of money. That report (link opens PDF) stated that "every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy." Only one in ten jobs created wound up being permanent. President Clinton has acknowledged that Spain's program is seriously flawed. Even Spain's Socialist government itself has conceded the economic ruin these policies have wrought.
Some people, sadly, cannot accept reality. Dr. Calzada received the suspicious looking package and consulted an terrorism expert before opening it. The expert told him that he had received the dismantled parts of a bomb; a common warning that implies that if he doesn't stand down, the next package will be a completed bomb. This is not the only trouble for Dr. Calzada since his report. Pajamas Media gives us the details:
The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.
Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” — they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report.
Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up. What's most amazing about this story is who sent the package. It wasn't some lone loony green acting on his own. It was a Spanish solar energy company! Dr. Calzada saw the package was from Thermotechnic and called them before opening it to ask what was inside. As he tells it, they answered: "it was their answer to my energy pieces."
Imagine the outrage if an oil company sent a similar package to a Global Warming advocate. The media would have a field day; we'd never hear the end of it. But as of now, this story, wherein a scientist received a dismantled bomb from a solar energy company because they didn't like the results of his study. appears to have been virtually ignored by the American press. Can't say we're surprised.Back to top Science & Ecologyby Paul C. Knappenberger
Administrator, World Climate Report; Writer, MasterResource
June 21, 2010
A new study has concluded that shifting climate is leading to shifting vegetation patterns across the globe. My response to this announcement was “Terrific! The biosphere was responding the way it should to changing conditions.” To my surprise, this enthusiasm wasn’t shared by the study’s authors. In fact, lead author Patrick Gonzalez seemed downright glum . . .
The only way to see this in a negative light would to hold the belief that everything that humans do to the world is bad. . . . I am not saying that there aren’t some negatives for some species when the climate changes. Of course there are. But what I am saying is that there are plenty of positives as well. And it takes no more imagination to come up with positives than it does for negatives. . . .
Just imagine what the attitude of the day would be like if we were under a constant barrage of all the good things that climate change may bring, instead of the bad. We’d all be driving SUVs, eating platefuls of meat, and keeping our thermostats set to comfortable levels. OK, but, we’d be feeling a bit less guilty about it. . . .
What Gonzalez and colleagues find so “disrupting,” according to their press release is that there is ample evidence that
over the past century, vegetation has been gradually moving toward the poles and up mountain slopes, where temperatures are cooler, as well as toward the equator, where rainfall is greater. And,
Moreover, an estimated one-tenth to one-half of the land mass on Earth will be highly vulnerable to climate-related vegetation shifts by the end of this century, depending upon how effectively humans are able to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to the study. This is an example of using “vulnerable” instead of a neutral word like “responsive” or even a positive such as “receptive.” . . .
Carbon dioxide is a plant fertilizer—the more of it there is in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. Aspects of climate can act in a similar way. More sunshine in cloudy areas, more rainfall in dry areas, and higher temperatures in cold areas can all act to boost plant growth. And it is precisely these types of climate changes that have taken place over the past 20-30 years. And as a result, the world’s plants have responded positively. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Roy W. Spencer
Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Author, DrRoySpencer.com; Author, Climate Confusion and The Great Global Warming Blunder
June 15, 2010
As summer approaches, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Gulf of Mexico increase in response to increased solar insolation (intensity of sunlight). Limiting the SST increase is evaporation, which increases nonlinearly with SST and approximately linearly with increased wind speed. It is important to realize that the primary heat loss mechanism by far for water bodies is evaporation.
By late summer, SSTs in the Gulf peak near 86 or 87 deg. F as these various energy gain and energy loss mechanisms approximately balance one another.
But yesterday, buoy 42040, moored about 64 nautical miles south of Dauphin Island, AL, reported a peak SST of 96 deg. F during very low wind conditions. Since the SST measurement is made about 1 meter below the sea surface, it is likely that even higher temperatures existed right at the surface…possibly in excess of 100 deg. F. . . .
Since buoy 42040 has been near the most persistent area of oil slick coverage seen by the MODIS instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites, I think it is a fair supposition that these very high water temperatures are due to reduced evaporation from the oil film coverage on the sea surface.
Despite the localized high SSTs, I do not believe that the oil slick will have an enhancement effect on the strength of hurricanes. The depth of water affected is probably pretty shallow, and restricted to areas with persistent oil sheen or slick that has not been disrupted by wind and wave activity. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Economics & Energyby Jamie Dean
World Magazine, July, 2010
About once a month, Robert Bryce climbs onto the roof of his Austin, Texas, home, lugging a long-handled mop. The science writer and Manhattan Institute fellow isn't cleaning gutters. He's cleaning solar panels.
The 3,200-watts of solar photovoltaic panels provide one-third of the electricity that Bryce's family consumes, slightly reducing his monthly power bill. But the panels aren't without problems: The start-up costs were high, the inverter has already broken once, and the panels require regular cleaning.
Bryce quickly wondered if the panels were worth the investment, and he soon realized that the limits of solar power for his Texas home extended to the rest of the country: Solar power won't run America anytime soon. Neither will wind power. . . .
For Bryce, the problems with wind and solar power are simple: The math doesn't add up. The author of Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future (PublicAffairs, 2010), Bryce says wind and solar simply can't provide large amounts of power at a reasonable cost, a critical need for rich and poor countries alike.
Instead, Bryce and others point to already-proven energy sources they believe deserve more attention: natural gas and nuclear energy.
Natural gas, particularly, is abundant and available now. It's also easier to extract than oil and cleaner than coal. And—like nuclear power—natural gas trumps any wide-scale potential promised by wind or solar energy.
"I'm all for renewables," Bryce says. "I wish they worked better than they do. But our energy and power systems are not determined by carbon content or political correctness. They're determined by math and physics."
Math and physics offer stark realities about wind and solar energy. The most obvious problem: The sources are intermittent. . . .
Cal Beisner of the evangelical Cornwall Alliance points out that energy policy in the United States isn't isolated: "The average American does not connect the person in Sudan cooking over dung with energy policy in the U.S."
But policies that would raise the cost of energy here also serve as a model to other nations and as a basis for international treaties on energy consumption, says Beisner: "Not only would those policies hurt Americans by raising the price of energy for all of us . . . they would also impose such policies on people who desperately need to be delivered from the dirtiest possible fuels."
How critical is cheap energy for developing countries? Bryce points out that Africa—a continent with 14 percent of the world's population—has developed only 3 percent of the world's electricity. Of the 15 countries in the world with the highest death rates, 14 of them are in Africa. Of the 22 countries with the highest infant mortality rates, 21 of them are in Africa. Many factors contribute to those high death rates, but a widespread availability of cheap energy would likely make life healthier for millions. . . .
Read the rest.
Related items:
No Dumping
by Emily Belz
World Magazine, July, 2010
In Deep
by Jamie Dean
World Magazine, July, 2010Back to top by Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
MasterResource, June 30, 2010
. . . the draft legislation that Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will promote at today’s hearing could shut down all offshore drilling in the United States.
The draft text says the federal government “shall not issue a permit to drill for a high-risk well unless the applicant for such permit demonstrates . . . and the appropriate federal official determines that . . . the applicant has an oil spill response plan that ensures that the applicant has the capacity to promptly stop a blowout in the event the blowout preventer and other well control measures fail.” . . .
In short, the Blowout Prevention Act sets a standard no oil company can meet. No applicant for a permit to drill can “demonstrate” that it has “the capacity to promptly stop a blowout after the blowout preventer and other well control methods fail.” Chairman Stupak surely knows this, having belabored the point at the June 15 hearing.
Maybe the Blowout Prevention Act is simply a product of sloppy drafting. But maybe not. As written, the bill would revive and expand the federal ban on offshore drilling. Indeed, it would cripple U.S. domestic petroleum production. Do the sponsors not know that banning offshore drilling would increase consumers’ pain at the pump, destroy high-paying American jobs, and make the United States more dependent on OPEC oil? Or do they just not care?
Read the rest.Back to top Religion & Ethicsby E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Christianity Today, June 30, 2010
. . . How concerned should Christians be about care for the environment? It depends partly on what we mean by "care for the environment." Are we talking about subjective, emotional care, or objective, active care?
I suppose we all are capable of a good deal of emotional care for the environment,for what that's worth. But our resources are more limited for objective, outward care—time spent removing litter from a streambed, protesting toxic waste at a chemical plant, inventing a more fuel efficient and less polluting engine. Time and money and bodily energy spent on those cannot simultaneously be spent on HIV/AIDS care and prevention, hunger relief, evangelism, fighting human trafficking, or reading Bible stories to our children.
Prioritizing is inescapable. The apostle Paul's statement about gifts in the church applies: "There are many parts, but one body.The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you!'" (1 Cor. 12:20-21). . . .
How concerned should Christians be about caring for the environment? It depends on the Christian and his or her gifts; . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Jody Freeman
Professor, Harvard Law School
New York Times, June 30, 2010
. . . we should start rewarding companies that have exemplary safety records, exceed pollution standards and produce exceptional disaster response plans. Such incentives should never replace fines and penalties, which can often take years to work their way through the courts, but they could be a helpful complement. . . .
Here’s an example of how we might provide incentives for good behavior. Right now, royalty rates for offshore leases end up promoting dangerous deep-water drilling — the deeper you drill, the less you have to pay the government in royalties. Under the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act of 1995, Congress even waived royalties on millions of barrels of oil for certain deepwater leases from 1996 to 2000. This and other royalty relief programs have deprived the Treasury of billions of dollars in revenue, while rewarding the riskiest drilling in the deepest waters. Instead, royalty rates should be pegged to performance: those firms with excellent safety records should pay fewer royalties for offshore leases, and those with a history of accidents, safety lapses and penalties should pay more.
Likewise, we should speed up the permit process as an incentive for companies that go beyond the legal minimum requirements, pay for backup safety systems and provide superior worker training for spill response. Providing such rewards would encourage continuous improvement in technology and disaster planning. Industry leaders would be recognized for outpacing their competitors. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Politics & Debateby Robert Bradley, Jr.
Founder & CEO, Institute for Energy Research; Writer, MasterResource.org; Scholar, Cato Institute & Competitive Enterprise Institute; Research Fellow, Center for Energy Economics, University of Texas in Austin; Author, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy
July 1, 2010
. . . The Worldwatch Institute sang the praises of BP’s it’s-a-problem, we-can-solve-it approach to climate change. Far Left environmentalist Joe Romm featured John Browne/BP in his book Cool Companies as a leading example of corporations going green for profits and virtue.
Both Worldwatch and Romm were wrong–dead wrong–about BP, just as they were also wrong about climate-alarmist Enron and Ken Lay. It turns out that a lot of political profit-making and greenwashing was going on at both rogue companies. . . .
What if carbon dioxide (CO2) was/is the wrong target–the great distraction? What if the same effort had been expended on clear-and-present environmental and safety dangers? Where would BP be today? And how much better would our environment and our safety be? . . .
Read the rest.
Related items:
Part I: The Distraction of Climate Alarmism: Worldwatch Institute Quotations
Part II: The Distraction of Climate Alarmism: Why the 'Greenwashing'?Back to top by Dennis T. Avery
Director, Center for Global Food Issues; Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and Heartland Institute; Scientific Advisor, American Council on Science and Health; Co-Author, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years
June 28, 2010
I can’t help but praise Michael Specter’s new book: Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. Specter warns that we live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically-modified food grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. Fifty years ago pharmaceutical companies were regarded as vital supports for our good health and lengthening life spans; now they are seen as callous corporate enemies of health and the environment. . . .
“Either you believe evidence that can be tested, verified, and repeated will lead to a better understanding of reality or you don’t,” says Specter. “We are either going to embrace new technologies, along with their limitations and threats, or slink into the slime of magical thinking.”
Societies have used magical thinking for thousands of years, and it has provided emotional comfort to billions. Unfortunately, it has had little beneficial impact on the length of our lives, our earning power, or our quality of life. Magical thinking can’t produce comforts like air conditioning, conveniences such as computers and microwaves; or breakthrough technologies like antibiotics, and joint replacements. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Briefly NotedSpencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Continue Their Plunge
Pearce: A Grim Outlook for Emissions as Climate Talks Limp Forward
Thomas: Media Question Global Warming
Voters Can Chill State Global Warming LawBack to top Meet the CriticsMeet the Critics gives you basic information on 64 of the leading critics of dangerous manmade global warming. Today's critic:
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D.
Award-winning geologist Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University, has been involved in the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division (of which he was the president), the Geological Society of America (whose bulletin he edits), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the American Geophysical Union, and other professional societies. Easterbrook, the author of eight scientific books, explains a climate driver more believable than CO2: "In one year--1977--the Pacific Ocean switched from its cool mode into its warm mode and bingo!--within one year we get the big shift in climate and we start the beginning of what's now known as the global warming period." Having presented research papers in a dozen countries, Easterbrook is the author of around 150 scientific papers, including Correlation of Climatic and Solar Variations over the Past 500 Years and Predicting Global Climate Changes from Recurring Climate Cycles and The Next 25 Years: Global Warming or Gobal Cooling?--Geological and Oceanographic Evidence for Cyclical Climate Oscillations.
Back to top Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
