Posted by
Jason Cunningham on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:52:34 PM
In a recent editorial, the San Jose Mercury News opined that the Bush administration's listing of the polar bear as an endangered species was not only "merely symbolic," but that "it's the first time a species has been protected under the Endangered Species Act due to man-made global warming." And this wasn't long after Al Gore blamed the cyclone in Myanmar on global warming.
This has all gone too far. Yes, man-made industrialization has caused, and continues to cause, pollution that harms the environment, but is it as bad as Gore, the SJMN, et al. make it out to be? In my opinion, no, and scientific research has so far produced no conclusive evidence that the climate changes we're witnessing are anything other than the normal shifts that occur on Earth over time.
That's right, folks. Global Norming. We know that our planet has experienced its cold spells (such as the various Ice Ages) and its hot spells in time past. I'm not sure why this is, but I know that it happens. The cycles are long, to be sure -- most humans never have lived or ever will live during those times when the climatic changes become noticeable -- but we know that they happen. What we don't know is the exact impact of man-made pollutants on the planet's climate.
Yes, we need to change some of our habits. We need to conserve as much energy as is practically possible. We need to continue exploring alternative fuel sources. We need to stop topping off our landfills with plastic that won't disintegrate for a gazillion years. But Al Gore doesn't know that the Myanmar cyclone was spawned (primarily or even partially) by global warming. And nobody knows that the melting of Arctic ice is caused (primarily or even partially) by global warming. I think that man-made pollution could be affecting our environment ... but it might not be. And even if it is, its impact could be negligible. The moral of the story is, we just don't know much about the story. Humans could certainly be more energy efficient, but that's really all we know at this point; everything else is speculation.
This sounds an awful lot like evolution: few facts, lots of unsupported hypothesizing, drawing hasty conclusions while ostracizing those who disagree with the party line. Whatever happened to science getting its ducks in a row before firing off its conclusions? If high-scale, man-initiated global warming (or species-to-species evolution, for that matter) is ever definitively proven, I'll believe it; the truth must be believed, and besides that, neither scenario would conflict with what the Bible teaches and, therefore, with what I as a Christian believe. But we can't go spouting off (thank you, Sound-Bite Age) before we know what's going on.