Gore sees 'spiritual crisis' in warming
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050607.01B.gore.35aecd4.htmlWhat a perfect example of the dialectic at work. The scientifically "proven" fact of man-made global warming grows a spiritual "religious" appendage. So much for Science vs Religion in this case because it now attacks from both fronts. The debate is "over" according to the scientists so now is the time to join mother Gaia is battling the evil corporations from destroying the earth to the end that we can attain salvation from our spiritual crisis of our own self-definition.
While we are at it, Go Captain Planet!!! Rid the world of poverty through a huge, massive, inefficient, corrupt wealth transfer mechanisms like the Kyoto protocol that, by 'their' own admission, CANNOT stop global warming.
Mr. Gore demonstrates Hegel's philosophy by taking the "good" parts of many battling ideas to form this new emerging idea to replace all ideas.... for now.
7 comments:
Troy, I would ask you if you want to be wrong about global warming. The majority of scientists agree that CO2 emissions are creating problems that could cause millions of deaths sometime down the road. Remember about choice!
The other question I would ask is: Isn't this indeed a matter of spirituality? Certainly it is not a question of ego for the Christian person--I can do whatever I want no matter if it might hurt someone. That's Utilitarianism which has no moral foundation. The Christian, it seems to me, must ask: Does God want me to do this (buy an SUV, not develop alternative methods of producing power rather than coal and oil, use up all the natural resources which He provided for us, etc.)? It isn't an intellectual question for those of us who are uninformed or not properly and accurately informed. So, it seems to me it is a religious matter. God gave us dominion over the earth. Did him mean dominion as master/slave, or did he mean dominion as in parent/child? Does God want me to burn down forests, or does He want me to plant them? Does he want me to pave over the farm land to build a mess of McMansions, or does He want me to feed His people?
Does He want me to allow weeds to grow all around my house while I watch TV, or does He want me to plant roses and bring His beauty more into this world? For me, that's all soul and completely religious. So I go with Gore sort of on a Pascal's Wager basis: It's better to bet on it than suffer the consequences of being wrong!
PRW,
If someone were to tell you, "If you don't jump off a 50 ft cliff right now, the earth will blow up in 50 years." would Pascal's Wager apply? No. That is because the notion I just presented is absurd.
Christianity aside:
As far as absurdity:
Al Gore deosn't mention that all of the global warming models he shows do not incude the effect of clouds. Clouds happen to be a very important part of our atmosphere. His models do not work with them included. A group of scientists over here at Battelle were working on this until they lost the funding. I'm still waiting to hear his explanation of the GLOBAL COOLING from the 70's. We were told we needed to drop SOOT on the polar ice caps. Read it yourself. http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
Nor does he mention that the Himalaya glaciers are increasing in size along with over 80 percent of the worlds glaciers. Not hard to verify.
Nor does he cite the most recent UN report that if anything is to be done about global warming, it is that every member of the planet must be vegan. Cow farts produce more cabon than all of man's industry. PETA had a field day with this report. It was a 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled "Livestock's Long Shadow"
Concerning jumping off a 50 ft cliff:
He never mentions that Kyoto was an econimic treaty that establishes a credit transfer system where poorer countries have lots of credits and rich countries have few creits. Rich countries who don't have enough carbon credits to meet their goals simply buy credits from the poorer countries. With this system, no one has to change thier habits and wealth gets transfered from one country to the next. At least France admits that the treaty was first step to global governance. Not to mention India and China were exempt.
I don't side with Gore because he is inconsistant and leaves many important facts under the rug. With his mansion and carbon footprint added on top of his inconsistancy, I am left to consider Al Gore to be a man with an agenda and not to be trusted. His reasoning is absurd.
PRW, thank you for you comments.
I am not saying that I think there is no global warming. I am talking about the politically correct rhetoric that is squashing any real analysis of the situation.
From what I can gather, the majority of scientist agree the earth is warming. 40% say it is man made and 40% say it is not while the other 20% say there is not enough data. Is it man made or just a hotter solar cycle? The waters are muddy in this area because if your science does not line up with the political views of those that are funding you, then you are out of a job. I know this works from both end but it is needed to keep things in perspective. The old saying goes, if you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.
Is this a matter of spirituality? I think it is defiantly a world view issue. Science can only tell us that the earth is warming. It can not tell us what to do about it.
When God gave dominion of the earth to Man, I think it was in a stewardship sense. We are to take care of it but we were also given the authority to use it as well. I am all for conservation, efficency and renewable energy. In fact I believe I am heading into that field to help solve our energy problems. My problems with Al and his 'spirituality' are on the economic front and the problem solving front.
His spirituality ties into the radical environmentalist greenpeace types. They worship the earth and say that the earth would be better if now humans interacted with it. The economics of these groups will not allow a functioning economy.
I don't think Al has the right solution to the problem. I think the energy problem is much bigger then the global warming problem. If you solve global warming then you don't solve for energy but if you solve for energy correctly then you solve for global warming. I think that when the energy problem turns into a crisis then the global warming problem will be forgotten.
Your comments are always thought provoking.
Great comments and questions. I love this kind of discussion. Keep them coming. I could do this all day.
-Troy
yo dog! You lost me completely on the 50 foot/50 year thing. Could you clarify that as to its relationship to global warming? Al Gore is not right about everything--after all, he once claimed to have invented the internet--but there is sufficient evidence from any number of sources to suggest that something is going on. So I ask: What harm does it do for us individually and collectively to try to reduce greenhouse gases and conserve natural resources? Troy speaks to the religious issue of stewardhip, with which I agree. We are to be good stewards for the generations who follow us. So what's the harm in taking care to not do damage where and how we can? I would not take Glen Beck's word for anything because there's a guy with an agenda! If you give me a journal reference, I'll be happy to look it up. As to the 70's, we were pushing solar and wind power here in California in order to conserve resources and reduce energy costs, but once the big corporations got their way and achieved deregulation, we stopped those actions. If we'd been able to proceed, perhaps this wouldn't even be an issue. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the religious side of the question and not put it aside. I think it's of huge importance. From a social aspect, when something like 10% of the world's population is consuming 90% of the world's resources, something ain't workin'!
yo dog, as I've said before, I always have one more point. This one is on methane gas. There are dairy farmers all up and down this great valley who are using the methane from the "cow farts" to run their homes, their farms, and have enought left over to make money by selling the remainig power to the power companies who can then gouge us! And after the intial investment, which has tax advantages, it is purely a money making proposition for the farmer. Pretty cool!
Every Kyoto discussion I've ever heard talks about the ability of corporations to transfer their credits from one company to another, but I've never heard it said that it is a form of transfer of wealth to poor countries. Again, I'd like a site on that one. My understanding is that the Administration did not want to join in because it would interfere with corporate bottom lines. I'm done now (perhaps).
Troy - Sorry to be so slow in posting, but my technological deficiencies have been getting in my way. I think I finally have my accounts and passwords squared away!
I absolutely agree with you on stewardship. I once preached a eulogy for a farmer's funeral and used that metaphor all the way through. It is the essence of both these problems.
I can't separate global warming from energy. If the "warmers" are right, then it is our flamboyant use of energy that is creating the problem. Even if the "warmers" are off the mark, we are using up resources and are not renewable, and if we want to have a world for your grandchildren, we'd best be getting our act together!
How are you connecting "spirituality" with "world view"?
If Al is part of the radical greenpeace movement, then I'm not in accord with him at all! Just as I am not in accord with the radical PETA folks. You don't solve any problem anywhere any time by destroying property, killing people and killing animals when they are what you're trying to save! My brother-in-law is very involved in the movement to save the ancient Redwoods in Humboldt County, and they do their work by working with the lumber companies and the legislative and executive branches of California's government. Radical anything makes me very, very suspicious.
But, perhaps Al is not radical. Perhaps he is simply part of the New Age religious stuff that blends the ancient Celtic spirituality (to the extent we know anything about it) with indigenous Native American spirituality (about which we know a great deal) and ancient, ancient, Greek mythology where Gaia is the name of the Earth Mother. Maybe he'll tell me.
PRW,
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the energy front. We need to conserve and change our energy use habits. Sadly though, most people just will not want to change. I think something will have to happen to force people to change. I think that something will be when our oil and gas drys up or our wallets dry up from paying for it. A smarter 'softer' lading is preferable but I don't think the public will swallow that pill.
I liked world view to spirituality because these issues deal with the atheists too. They have to believe something and if they don't believe in anything religious or spiritual then what do you call it. I am using 'world view' as a broad term to include everyone, thats all.
Post a Comment