I once thought I was wrong ...

…but I was mistaken.

Way back on October 14, 2005, I posted an essay on the topic of Global Warming (titled “Tastes kinda like chicken…”) in which I stated my belief (at that time) that Global Warming actually was “For Real” and based on apparently sound scientific evidence. I now recant that position and repent of having made that statement. I’m now back to where I was before (not that any of you probably care), having read a little more on the nature of the evidence for both sides and of the controversy itself. I’m convinced now that it isn’t really about potentially catastrophic long-term climate change at all (just as I originally suspected), but rather about fame & money (Pulitzer Prizes, government-funded research, etc.) and international political and social control (you know, the UN for example, and its plans to implement and enforce international standards for personal behavior?) of, well, everything. Control of your behavior and mine, of entire industries, the sovereignty of less-powerful countries, all aspects of domestic and international commerce and trade … everything. This is really depressing. If you think it sounds like I’m talking about an international conspiracy, you would be…um…right. Or there may be more than one conspiracy going on, but if so, they all tend to work in the same general direction (that of concentrating more of the world’s wealth, political power and social control in the hands of an elite few), so for the sake of simplicity (?) I will speak as if there were only one.

You know, it’s a funny thing about conspiracies. They only work in the dark, i.e. if nobody knows about them. If everybody knew about their nature and agenda (i.e. if that agenda were out in the open) there would be no need for the conspiracy, of course, and it wouldn’t exist. But what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy consists in two or more persons involved together in planning and executing some selfish or nefarious agenda that most people would oppose if it were made known (hence the need for secrecy). And plainly such things do exist or else the State wouldn’t waste its time prosecuting people for such things as “Conspiracy to Commit Murder.” But nowadays, when it comes to the idea of really big conspiracies involving a particular class of people (e.g. the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the world), those who might be involved, those who stand to gain powerfully by its continuance and eventual or ongoing success (and who have the material and political means to ensure its continued secrecy), simply have to deny its existence and imply that the person who has gotten wind of it and is raising suspicions of its clandestine operations, is “just another crazy Conspiracy Theorist.” They never have to answer any inconvenient questions concerning their activities that may have come to light, or refuting the points of alleged evidence indicating the likelihood of said conspiracy. They simply chuckle and say “Conspiracy Theory!” and every average Joe who might see the public exchange is expected to say to himself, “Oh, yeah. ‘Conspiracy Theory.’ What a nutcase! Of course, there aren’t any conspiracies. What a foolish idea! It’s just too far-fetched.” And every conspirator mops his brow and mutters under his breath, “Whew! We dodged that bullet again…”

But sometimes the presence of a conspiracy is the only conceptual framework that can account for all the known facts. For example, that the Directors of all the biggest multinational corporations are, for the most part, all the same people—all sitting on each others’ Boards, voting each other enormous salary/compensation packages, buying politicians into office who will do their bidding and sign on to international treaties such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO (and they are working on more) that will circumvent (and supersede) the U.S. Constitution in matters pertaining to (for example) the regulation of commerce and trade, treaties which facilitate the accumulation of still more of the world’s wealth in the hands of said Directors (certainly in their control if not actually in their pockets) at the expense of their employees’ standard of living and job security, etc., etc., etc.

Wow! Those are some pretty far-fetched suppositions, I admit, and there’s probably nothing to them, nor to the fact that most of them (Directors and CEOs of multinational corporations), along with various Heads of State (G8 nations) and the world’s most powerful & influential politicians, policy makers and media people are all members of one group that is so secret in its purpose and doings that it doesn’t even have a name (but is affectionately referred to by outsiders as “The Bilderberg Group” after the name of the hotel in The Netherlands where they held their first meeting in May 1954), which meets every couple of years under Top Security. But the attendees at these meetings never mention in public or to the press just what it is they discuss, or even that they discuss anything. Like I said, there’s probably nothing to it, and I’m sure it’s all just a happy coincidence. In all likelihood they meet just to compare their golf scores… but still … it kinda makes you wonder….

Well anyway … what was I talking about? … Oh, yeah! Global Warming. Well, as it turns out, all the “evidence” in favor of the theory is based on selectively edited observations less than 100 years old, bubbles found deep in glacial ice (ancient air samples), tree rings, and a lot of assumptions (like “CO2 is the main culprit”) about the causes (and effects) of average atmospheric warming/cooling on a global scale, and (here’s the kicker) projections (numerical models) into the distant future (100 years or more), which in turn are based on their own sets of assumptions.

It also seems to be the case that there are relatively few (but extremely influential) people (who generally know nothing about science—but quite a bit about money and shaping public opinion) who are interested in pushing it as a socio-political agenda (people like Ted Turner, owner of CNN, etc.). Symposiums and conferences on Global Warming (G.W.) tend to be carefully orchestrated and one-sided affairs, with forums for the airing of dissenting positions given very limited time and space and generally relegated to the hinterlands. Whenever the dissenting scientists hold a symposium of their own, they are quietly ignored by CNN, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and everyone else that looks to them for cues on what is or isn’t “newsworthy.”

My question is this: If G.W. is such a self-evident fact, why aren’t the people who know all about it dragging the dissenters out into the spotlight in front of God and everybody, publicly scrutinizing their positions and generally doing everything they can to make them look as foolish as their allegedly crack-pot theories, letting the facts speak for themselves?

I recently read an article in that prestigious scientific journal, The Seattle Times (the syndicated article was by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post) that I hoped & expected from the headline to give the dissenting side of the Global Warming issue. I found those hopes dashed on the rocks of ideology and political correctness.

Bill Gray (the scientist who is the main subject of the article) has over 50 years of professional experience in meteorology (which undoubtedly requires a working knowledge in all other disciplines which have a bearing on weather and climate) which leads him to this professional opinion: “Global Warming” is a hoax. This is based on the idea that direct observations and measurements don’t lie. And while computer-generated theoretical models (upon which the dominant theory of G.W. is based) can’t “lie,” they can be in error. Anyone who is familiar with computer software is familiar with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). In other words, the results you get from running a computer program will only be as good as the instructions written into the program itself. If the instructions (which will include any number of assumptions the programmer has in his mind and wants to test using the program) are defective, inaccurate or erroneous, the resulting answers or projections will be wrong.

Bill Gray contends (and he is not alone by any means) that many of the assumptions that form the basis of the computer models that seem to indicate ongoing G.W. are unwarranted because they are not based on sufficient direct observation of natural events and patterns, and there is insufficient scientific foundation for many of their fundamental assumptions or estimates. In other words, the weather “ain’t broke, so stop trying to fix it.” The changing weather patterns experienced around the world over the past several decades are normal and part of huge cycles (over centuries) that are occurring around the earth all the time. While man-made “greenhouse” gas emissions might contribute (slightly) to the situation, there is no reason to suspect their effect to be greater than about 2%. Of much greater impact are the purely natural forces (e.g. volcanoes, both on land and under the ocean) over which we have absolutely no control. There is certainly no reason for all this hype and panic! The best scientists (whether or not they receive government (tax) money), when you really pin them down, will admit that there is so much that we really don’t know about all the factors that influence weather and climate, that all they’re really doing is following their hunches.

Over the years, our ability to take precise measurements of the weather and ocean currents, etc. (more satellites, improved research techniques, better instruments, etc.) has improved tremendously. And those better measurements indicate that the warming trend (yes, there was a warming trend) that we’ve been experiencing since about 1970 stopped in 1998! Since 1998 the average global temperatures have not been increasing, but holding steady (or even going down [cooling] slightly). This too is part of a big natural pattern, and certainly nothing to panic about. But it is actual evidence that (contrary to the computer projections and the “dominant paradigm”) if G.W. was occurring, it no longer is. (In fact there are a number of scientists who believe that a much more likely scenario is another major Ice Age.)

Where is the evidence for this cooling? Examples are that land-bound polar ice (Antarctica, Greenland, northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska & Canada)—(sea ice depth has no effect on ocean levels)—is getting thicker and many glaciers around the world are beginning to advance again (rather than receding). But even when reports of such observations find their way into the mainstream press, they are misinterpreted to fit the G.W. paradigm. For example, a reporter might conclude that since the terminal face (front end) of a glacier is moving downhill, it must be melting faster and sliding downhill at a faster pace! (More Panic!) Well, that isn’t how glaciers behave. Whenever they melt faster, they recede (the terminal face goes uphill). And they don’t “slide” downhill, they grind. If the terminal face is moving downhill, that means the glacier is melting slower and getting larger (indicating a general cooling trend in the glacier’s vicinity).

But the folks who are in the grip of G.W. panic (and those who keep the panic alive by their manipulation of the data and their published and broadcast “reports”) all seem to be screaming, “So what if the actual evidence is inconclusive? We can’t just wait for something (bad) to happen! We can’t afford to just sit around and do nothing!” And that “we,” by the way, almost always refers to government intervention. Things like increasing regulation of entire industries and individuals’ personal habits and behaviors (like driving to work every day, what you can and cannot buy, and what it is going to cost you, etc.). Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we can—and should—just sit back and do nothing. In fact, I can’t think of one thing that the government has gotten involved in that it hasn’t actually made worse by its meddling, intrusive efforts to “fix” the supposed “problem.” Politicians simply don’t know what they are doing. But that never seems to stop them from feeling they have to prove to their constituents (and especially to the moneyed people whose campaign contributions ensure their continuance in office) that they are “doing something.”

So anyway … The point of the Achenbach article doesn’t seem to be to explain what the skeptics are saying, but to hold them up to ridicule. It mentions their claims (or at least some of the highlights), but avoids going into the reasons behind those claims. It intimates that “the realm of the skeptics” is “a parallel Earth,” implying that they don’t live in the Real World (*wink*). It says that “the skeptics don’t have to win the argument. They just have to stay in the game…” It also states, “They’re winning the [political] battle.” (Well, do you suppose it might be possible that the reason they’re winning is that they make more sense?) The article keeps referring to Gray’s knowledge and research as “stuff,” a word Gray himself uses for the sake of brevity, but which Achenbach seems to use to suggest that his views amount to vague nonsense. People who hold similar views, we are told, are “in every field of science. There are always people on the fringes” (*wink*). It’s as though he wanted to end his article by saying, “See? I told you they were crack-pots.”

There is undoubtedly a “consensus” in favor of a G.W. scenario among those scientists who get media attention and government (tax) money for their research, but the extent (or even existence) of a general consensus among all scientists in the field has yet to be demonstrated. The "consensus" they refer to is among "reputable" scientists, and if you disagree on G.W. you are by definition no longer considered (by them) "reputable." That's why.

Feet of clay

• Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matt 7:1; Lk 6:37; cf. Rom 14:10-13).
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matt 7:12; Lk 6:31).
• Don’t put people up on pedestals because sooner or later they will fall off. (I don’t think that’s in the Bible, but it’s still true.)

Here are words to live by: Don’t expect people to be perfect. We are all (every one of us alive today) fallen human creatures with limited mental resources and a plethora of moral weaknesses and sinful tendencies. If you idolize someone (beyond the strictly metaphorical sense) that’s, well, the sin of idolatry. Scientists aren’t perfect. Teachers aren’t perfect. Parents and spouses aren’t perfect. Priests aren’t perfect. Popes aren’t perfect. Even people generally identified as “living saints” make errors and get cranky from time to time. If you’re the kind of person who expects uniform impeccability from anyone, you are doomed to disappointment. To be sure, we are all called to strive for perfection in this life (and some even make considerable progress in that direction), but eventually we all fall short of the mark and must rely on God’s mercy to bring us to our heavenly home. And we all need the help of others along the way (whether we are willing to admit it or not).

Don’t be devastated, don’t lose your faith because some (religious) authority—or presumed authority—(priest, nun, parish Director of Religious Education, bishop, theologian, etc.) makes some mistake in action or judgment, makes a false statement (or writes a book of heresy) or abuses his (or her) authority in some way. Even if the error is objective, obvious and impossible to ignore, do not be too quick to judge the person’s interior disposition or degree of culpability (guilt before God).

It has been said (I’m not sure where) that the floor of the lowest pit of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. That may be true, but I would never presume to say which bishops they might be. I would never want to be a bishop myself because of the responsibility he bears for so many souls. (In fact, I’d say if any man actually aspires to be a bishop or the pope, that alone should be enough to disqualify him.) The reason bishops are more likely than your average layman to wind up in hell is not so much that they may have done so many more evil deeds as that they didn’t do enough to lead souls to God (sins of omission), or that they set a bad example. To whom much (grace) is given, much more is expected.

The office of bishop or pope (or even your humble parish priest) is bigger than the man. The important thing is the office itself, not necessarily the individual holding it at any particular time. Every bishop and pope is a sinner. And yet his office is essential to the work of the Church which must continue to the end of time. So though we may have to suffer from time to time (sometimes for quite a long time) with the deleterious acts and pronouncements of some sinful bishops, yet we must love them and prayerfully support them for (if nothing else) the sake of their souls (and our own), and for the sake of Christ and His Church. (Prudence dictates, however, that, if we are the flock of such shepherds, we look elsewhere to our own education in the faith.)

It is said (I have heard) in courses of moral theology that the office (i.e. duty, purpose) of the Church stops at the threshold of conscience. That being said, it must also be understood that a person’s conscience does not form itself in a vacuum. There are certain universal moral precepts (cf. Rom 2:13-16) to which all men must adhere without exception. A conscience must be well formed in order to serve the purpose for which it was created. What the Church does is propose, not impose. Its job is to propose (preach, present, explain) the truth that is revealed by God to the world (all men and women everywhere). Men and women of good will should listen to and weigh what the Church has to say and apply it to their lives for their own benefit (getting to heaven) and for the common good of society (assisting others to get to heaven). It is up to individual men and women to receive the truth freely and implement it in their lives (by practicing virtue and rejecting vice) and apply the virtues for the good of society (e.g. legislators making positive law that protects the natural rights of all human beings, encourages truth and the practice of virtue and discourages vice).

The Church’s project, her assigned task, is to lead souls to heaven, not to drag them there against their will—that can’t be done anyway, though some over-zealous people do try that approach from time to time. Actual conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit and is a gift that He offers to each person individually in the context of his particular circumstances, which each person is free to either accept (and repent) or reject (and keep on sinning). We cannot force anyone to receive the faith. (A baptism, for example, administered to someone [an adult capable of understanding what it’s all about] without his actual (or at least reasonably presumed, if he is unconscious) consent is invalid.)

Fraternal correction
What is the difference between “passing judgment” on someone and giving a warning to your neighbor who may be sinning? The saying that “if it’s asked for, it’s called advice; if it isn’t, it’s called criticism” applies only narrowly. Sometimes it isn’t criticism even if it’s not solicited. For example, “Hey buddy, your right-rear tire is low on air.” Now while I suppose there might be some who would take offense at such a remark (“What a jerk! Who does he think he is, anyway?! Master Mechanic? He’s criticizing me because he thinks I’m not maintaining my car properly!”), most people would take it in the spirit in which it was given and be grateful for a stranger’s kind observation.

It is possible to make a relatively objective appraisal of another person’s behavior without passing judgment on the inner disposition of his soul (only God can do that). In fact, elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Matt 18:15-17; Jn 7:24) we are charged to make judgments concerning other people’s sinful activity. However the point of such judgment is not to crush the sinner in vengeance, but to show him the error of his ways and thus show him the way to repentance. This is an act of mercy, an act of true love, concern for another’s salvation and ultimate happiness.

If someone else (be he friend or stranger) sees a problem that I might not see (even if it is a character flaw or personal “blind spot”), I would hope he points it out to me (as gently as possible, of course). Why? Because I recognize that I am human too, I also have feet of clay. I want to be the best person I can be, and so rely on others to help me grow, improve and root out faults. I crave the truth, even if it is the “ugly” truth about myself. I’m man enough to take it. I want to get to heaven!