Sunspots 823

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: Gizmodo reports on an on-line exhibit showing reconstructions of the Oval Office from 1909 to the present.

Computing: Gizmodo reports that far-right sources, especially those spreading misinformation, are more likely to be followed on social media than other types of sources.

Environment: Gizmodo discusses how humans influence much of the water cycle.

Gizmodo also reports that building codes are being kept from changing so as to slow global climate change.

Gizmodo reports on the biggest pipeline spill since 1977, and you've probably never heard of it.

Gizmodo also asks a panel to indicate the most climate-safe place to live.

Health: Gizmodo reports that diphtheria infections are on the rise, because of mutated bacteria.

Politics: (or something) Relevant reports on the US birth rate, which has dropped recently, and the probable consequences.

NPR on the pervasiveness of misinformation, aka conspiracy theories.

FiveThirtyEight says that someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene could be elected from other Congressional districts in the future.

Politico reports that Donald Trump has sent cease-and-desist orders to the Republican National Committee and other important fund-raising entities, asking them not to use his name and photo.

Science: Gizmodo reports on an asteroid that is near the earth now, will be again in a few years, and might hit the earth in 2068.

Sports: (and politics) Jezebel has a long article on trans-gender participation in high school athletics.

CBS News reports on CRISPR gene editing, which seems to be the most important scientific development of the 21st century. A woman, Jennifer Doudna, had a major responsibility for the process. She shared a Nobel prize with a woman from France.

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.

Thanks for looking!

Sunspots 512

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:
Christianity: (sort of) Google has a map of present-day Israel, and surrounding countries, with information on sites of historical interest also marked.
Computing: OneTab is a browser add-on that converts all your browser's tabs to links, which can save clutter, and release some of your computer's resources. It can also be used to restore any or all such to tabs. (The web site apparently automatically recognizes which browser you are using.)
Health: National Public Radio says that we are spending a lot less, proportionally, on food than our grandparents did.
Humor: Addam Schwartz, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, pokes fun at recent studies that claim sitting is bad for our health.
There's a YouTube video, less than 2 minutes long, that says that you and I have been eating bagels incorrectly.
NPR reports on the fairly long history of knock-knock jokes.
Science: NPR reports that it may snow in the northern tier of states, but there are dust storms in parts of Africa, and they can be worse than snow.
Wired praises the aluminum can.

Marketplace reports that FEMA has a Waffle House Index, which tells them how bad things are after a storm. Really.

Image source (public domain)

The Global Warming Petition Project

Whether or not there is global warming, what effects it might have, if there is such, and what is causing it are a matter of some controversy.

This pamphlet, by Calvin Beisner and others, is part of the evidence that there is, indeed, controversy. The pamphlet, authored by four confessed Christians, is concerned with the fundamental questions above, and with effects on the poor, which is commendable. The authors doubt that there will be serious effects, and believe that the evidence for global warming is weak, at best.

Part of their argument (it's not all of it, by any means -- read the pamphlet for the whole picture) is that many scientists, over 30,000 in the US, to date, have signed a petition, (sometimes known as the Oregon Petition) which states that there is not credible evidence that global climate change will cause serious effects, and that increasing the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere may even be beneficial. Interesting!

I have examined the list of signers of the petition. I didn't look at all of them, but I did decide to look at some possible signers (There are currently 369 listed) from my own state, South Carolina. Here's what I found.

Of the first six Ph.Ds listed, one is deceased, and I could not locate information on three others. The remaining two are a chemist, specializing in Lithium, and a nuclear engineer, specializing in medical use of isotopes. Neither of these specialties have much to do with climate.

The only University in the state with a climate-related department is the University of South Carolina. Here's the list, as of December 9, 2014, of 21 persons listed as having some expertise in climate. Some of those are not climate scientists (one is a psychologist). Of those who, judging from the information on the web page, have some expertise in climate, not one is found among the signers of the petition. The State of South Carolina has a State Climatology Office. There are four persons on the staff. None of them have signed the petition.

South Carolina is not particularly friendly to Democrats, or to accepting global warming as a danger. A former Republican US Congressman, Bob Inglis, lost to a Republican challenger, after eight terms in the House, apparently because of his stated belief that global climate change was real, and we needed to deal with it. We have no state-wide office filled by a Democrat. The State Government has joined in a lawsuit against President Obama's recent immigration executive orders, and refused to accept federal funds to help with the expenses of healthcare for the poor. Former Vice President and Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Gore has probably been the most prominent communicator about the dangers of global warming. Republicans, by and large, have often publicly disbelieved in these dangers. See here for a speech stating her disbelief, by former Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann, who displayed an appalling lack of understanding of science. She claimed that Carbon Dioxide, being a natural substance, can't be dangerous. Try breathing it, if you believe that! You might suppose that there would be some encouragement, or at least no discouragement, for professionals in my state to sign this petition, because we are a Red state. But the ones I checked haven't signed it. 

The petition web site lists signers, with, in most cases, terminal degrees after their names. Many of them are Ph.Ds, but the petition's web page indicates that less than one-third of those signing have that degree. There is no easy way to tell how many of them have an earned doctorate in some area of climate science. Some of the signers are listed as MDs. No MD that I know of, including one of my close relatives, has anything approaching expertise in climate science. Neither do I, in spite of my Ph.D. (Which was in genetics and zoology.) There is a Wikipedia article assessing the credibility of the signers. The petition, with its many signers, is not solid evidence for the position of Beisner and others.














Is the petition the whole story on global warming? No. Perhaps the concerns of Beiser, and others, are valid. But perhaps they aren't. Thanks for reading.

The US Presidential campaigns on Global Climate Change

I have examined the "Issues" pages of the Obama and Romney campaign web sites, to see what they say about global climate change.

I found no evidence that Governor Romney's campaign site so much as mentions global climate change. The Issues page of that site does include a link to an Energy page, which is here. However, lest I mis-characterize Mr. Romney on the subject, I quote my own blog, from July 1 of this year: ". . . Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John Huntsman believe that the climate is changing globally, and that humans are influencing that." At that time, when the Republican candidates for President were interested in support from my state, South Carolina (There was a debate between them in South Carolina) the state's most widely circulated newspaper had an article which was my source. That article is no longer available, as far as I can determine. I don't know if Romney still holds to that view. He has changed his views on several issues, apparently. The other Republican candidates for President, at that time, did not agree with Romney and Huntsman, but Romney is the candidate.

President Obama's campaign site also has an Energy page, under Issues, which is here. The only mention of climate change is a graphic, which says "climate change is not a hoax."

In case you didn't know it, there are some people who believe that "Global warming is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer . . ." 

Both major party candidates said more about global climate change, leading up to the 2008 election, than either of the candidates are saying this time.

The Green Party, as would be expected, has a lot more to say about the subject than the two major parties.

Thanks for reading.

*  *  *  *

Added on October 19, 2012: Shell, Chevron, and BP all state that there is such a thing as Global Climate Change, and that using fossil fuels contributes to this. So does Exxon Mobil.

How insignificant humans are!

Leonard Pitts, columnist for the Miami Herald, has written a splendid column about, of all things, the Titanic. Yes, the ship that sunk. There is a re-make of a movie about it, showing in theaters now.

His point? We thought the Titanic was unsinkable. Even God could not sink it, they said. We thought we had it made. But we were wrong, 100 years ago, and we'd better not get to feeling too proud now. Even the Titanic was just a dot in an enormous ocean, an ocean so much older than the Titanic that we can scarcely imagine it.

Pitts doesn't mention it, but the building of the tower of Babel comes to mind. According to the story in Genesis, the builders had far too much appreciation for their own ability. Disaster struck. Pitts doesn't mention climate change, either, but that's just one place that the next disaster we aren't prepared for may come from. Or it may come from our dependence on the all-too-vulnerable North American power grid, from the European (and US) debt crisis, from Iran or North Korea starting a nuclear war, from disease germs becoming resistant to antibiotics, or from any one of a number of things I haven't thought of, or, of course, from the Second Coming. But a disaster will come. And we won't be ready, no matter how smart and well off we think we are.

We are recently evolved (or created, or both) inhabitants of a small planet around an ordinary sun in an ordinary galaxy, a very small spot, in time and space, in the grand scheme of things, and we forget that at our peril.

Thanks for reading!

Climate change and the velocity of light

"Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere." Robert Bryce, "Five Truths About Climate Change," Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2011.

I am not a climatologist. Neither is Mr. Bryce, according to the Wikipedia article on him. But, like him, I want to enter the discussion on global climate change.


Bryce refers to a recent experimental result, which may mean that some neutrinos travel may travel faster than the velocity of light. Bryce correctly notes that this result has not been confirmed. But I believe that he has compared apples and oranges.

The theory of relativity (actually, there are two of these, both due to Einstein) is a theory. That is, it is a group of ideas that attempts to explain the way things are. As I understand it, the evidence for global climate change is not theoretical, but, rather, is data, collected over a number of years, and Bryce is questioning the evidence -- the data, not a theory.

Scientists have frequently made mistakes. One kind of mistake is working with an inadequate theory. Another is experimental errors -- equipment malfunctions, for example. Usually, science is self-correcting. A better theory is proposed. Someone tries to repeat the data collection, and finds experimental errors. I don't think that either of these has occurred as relates to global climate change, at least not on a large scale. I think Bryce is wrong.

Thanks for reading.

Rick Perry on global warming

In last night's debate between Republican Presidential candidates, Texas Governor Rick Perry indicated that he is skeptical of scientific claims that global warming is real, because of the "scientific theory that’s not settled yet." However, when asked to do so, he did not name a single scientist that he relied on for his own view. Perhaps he doesn't know one, or perhaps he just ignored the question. Here's my own research on which, if any, scientists doubt the reality of global warming. I didn't find a single scientist with academic credentials in climate science who doubted that reality. I also speculated on why the reality of global warming is doubted.

Less there be any doubt about Perry's position, do a search for "Rick Perry global warming." One of the first returns for such a search is here. I was not able to locate any material on global warming on Perry's official site. Perhaps that site is still under development.

Exxon Mobil, for one, acknowledges global warming, presumably relying on scientific opinion. And, to quote the Exxon Mobil web site: "Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

Here's some material on the positions of other Republican candidates for president, on this topic. Most of them, unfortunately, share Governor Perry's position.

Thanks for reading.

The Ethics of Global Climate Change, edited by Denis G. Arnold

I recently read The Ethics of Global Climate Change, edited by Denis G. Arnold (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011). I have a few thoughts on the book.

First, the authors all accept that the global climate is changing, and that humans are playing a significant role in such change. Unfortunately, some of our political leaders, or potential leaders, don't seem to believe this. The editor compares the fossil fuel industry's tactics on obfuscating the reality of climate change to the tobacco industry's campaign to discredit the link between smoking and cancer. Although adding Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere is not the only thing we do that plays a role in climate change, it is probably the most important, and the authors didn't consider other actions in any depth.

Second, the topic given the most space in the book is the ethics of what happens to future generations as a result of decisions made, or not made, in the present. Most likely, our descendants will suffer in significant ways because of current inaction, or slow action, on our part.

Third, there seems to be general agreement, among people thinking about the issues, that regulating what countries do is not the only important thing that should be done. There are individuals, in all countries, who have a disproportionate effect on future climate, because of their life style is contributing more Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere than most people. (There are also individuals in all countries, including the US, such as, I suppose, the Amish, and homeless people, who are making little such contribution.) So regulating the United States, and not, say, Bangladesh, may mean that a few of the inhabitants of Bangladesh will be affecting the atmosphere considerably more than the average citizen of the US, but their actions will remain unregulated.

Fourth, there was little discussion of the effect of global climate change on non-human organisms, apparently because there has been little study of the issues.

I close with a quotation from the book: "Every state is a 'failed state' as far as climate is concerned." Henry Shue, "Human rights, climate change, and the trillionth ton," pp. 292-314. Quote is from p. 297.

Thanks for reading!

Republican Presidential Candidates on Global Climate Change

According to this source, Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and John Huntsman believe that the climate is changing globally, and that humans are influencing that. The same source indicates that candidates Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum do not believe either of these statements. I do not know the position, if one has been taken, of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and any other Republican candidates for President. (During the 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin argued that there is no Global Climate Change, even though the Republican platform acknowledged it.)

It's easy to find one thing Bachmann has said (see video), namely, that Carbon Dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas that plants benefit from, with the implication that we don't need to worry about it. Bachmann either didn't know, or chose not to tell, the whole story. Water is also a naturally occurring substance that we have to have to sustain life. But that doesn't mean that we can't get too much of it. Just try breathing water! Carbon Dioxide is a natural gas, and one that plants need for photosynthesis, but it is also a greenhouse gas -- one that is transparent to light coming in from the sun, but not so transparent to heat radiated from the earth.

In the same speech, Bachmann missed the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere by a factor of about 100-fold, which means that her dismissal of the addition of Carbon Dioxide due to human activity was also off by about 100 times.

It is unfortunate that anyone seeking high office is either misinformed, or resorts to deception.  Mrs. Bachmann, however, doesn't seem to have changed her views on this subject.

Global Climate Change is by no means the only important issue in the upcoming election, but it is an important one, and at least some of the Republican candidates seem to be either uninformed about it, or engaging in deliberate deception. It is also true that positions on the matter may change, or develop over time.

Thanks for reading.

Some alternative ways to control global warming

Even Cal Thomas, who says he doesn't believe in global warming, says that we need to cut our dependence on petroleum. But there are some other suggestions, radical, but perhaps less expensive, and more doable, for combating global warming.

James Lovelock has suggested that we fertilize upper layers of some parts of the ocean, using vertical pipes to bring nutrients from lower parts. The resulting increase in photosynthesis would lower the Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere.

Another possibility, proposed by a Russian climatologist who has since died, is to add sulfate aerosols to the atmosphere, which would cut down on the amount of light reaching the earth's surface, which, in turn, would mean less heating from the sun.

Perhaps the most radical, but seemingly feasible, idea is to fire millions of small mirrors into space, so that they come between the sun and the earth. This, again, would cut down on the amount of light reaching the earth.

Thanks for reading.

Global Warming: Karl Zimmer deflates national columnist George Will

I don't know, absolutely, whether there is global warming or not. I don't know, absolutely, whether human activity has had, and is going to continue to have, an effect on climate. But I also don't know, of my own knowledge, whether, say, Ephesians or Nahum are translated correctly, or even should be considered to be inspired. I have to take the word of experts in the fields of the history of the Bible, and of Bible translation. Similarly, I have to take the word of experts in climate research, who, almost without exception, tell us that, for sure, there is global warming. They tell us that the eleven hottest years ever recorded occurred since 1990. They tell us that the polar ice caps are measurably smaller than they used to be.

I recently posted on an unfortunate episode, wherein some global warming scientists apparently tried to conspire to keep what might have been contrary evidence from being published. (See here for my take, with two links to important related items.)

I read George Will's recent syndicated column on this subject, published in the Washington Post, as our local newspaper presented it. Will is a famous global warming skeptic. Today, Karl Zimmer, probably the most important science writer of our time, has analyzed Will's facts, and found them to be seriously wanting, based on misinterpretation and, in some cases, seriously in error, both of which Zimmer documents.

Thanks for reading.

Some caution about global warming

I have taken the view, over the years, that there really is such a thing as global warming, and that human activity is at least partly responsible for that. I am not, by any means, an expert on climatology, but I believe that the scientific consensus is strongly in favor of this view, based on good data.

There is a considerable amount of anecdotal photographic evidence, including changes in the polar ice caps, which is the main reason that I continue to hold to that view. But, out of fairness, I point out that some recently released e-mail exchanges between climate scientists seem to indicate that there has been some fudging to strengthen the case for data supporting global warming. If true, this is a shame. Science should be objective. It probably never has been entirely so, but, for the most part, the system has worked.

National Public Radio has a report, both textual and audio, about these e-mails, and provides an analysis of their significance.

Thanks for reading.

Global Warming and natural selection

Karl Zimmer has written an article for a publication of Yale University, wherein he presents evidence that climate change, within our lifetime, has led to measurable selection for change in some of the species around us.

Interesting.

Sunspots 222

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: CBS News, and many other sources, report that tanning beds cause skin cancer. Duh!

Wired reports that the swimming activity of jellyfish may influence climate. Amazing.

It's probably not going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced, but there's a web page, with extensive links, on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" who doubts the reality of global warming.

Music: CNN reports that Mozart may have started composing music even earlier than we knew that he did.

Christianity:
". . . kingdom service is not a program, nor is it a checklist, nor is it an organizational manual. It’s a surrender." - Threads from Henry's Web.

Image source (public domain)

Photos of the surface of Mars

5 stunning photos of the surface of Mars, showing changes as the seasons change, taken from an orbiting satellite, have been published by The Independent, a periodical from the UK. The photos were taken by a NASA satellite.

For NASA's image gallery, go here.

Isn't God a great artist?

The Bible and the Global Warming petition

I saw a brief excerpt from a political rally, featuring Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, on a TV news program a few days ago. When global warming was mentioned, at least some people in the crowd booed loudly. Palin apparently expected this reaction. I sometimes get e-mails or other indications from fellow Christians, questioning global warming, which usually means that they doubt that humans have, or can, influence climate. Sometimes, they even doubt that global temperatures are increasing.

Perhaps the most obvious questioning of the validity of human effects on climate is the Global Warming Petition Project, which claims that there:
". . . is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (All web sources in this document were consulted on October 9th, 2008. I expect that there will be additional signatures on the Global Warming Petition, and other changes in the information given below, as time passes.)

The Project says that 31,072 American scientists have signed the petition. Less than one-third of these have an earned doctorate, according to the petition's own web site. There doesn't seem to be a breakdown by academic field. There is a breakdown by state. There are 351 signers who are from South Carolina. I am from South Carolina, so I am especially interested in that state. The SC State Climatology Office has five persons on its staff. None of them have signed. The Natural Science Faculty of Bob Jones University, a conservative Christian institution which is in South Carolina, has sixteen faculty listed, apparently none with degrees in climate or weather studies. Of these, the chair (who has a doctorate in analytical chemistry) and other faculty have signed, including a microbiologist with a Ph. D., a field biologist with a Ph. D, and a person whose highest degree is a bachelor's in broadcast engineering from BJU*, making 25% of the listed faculty. Is petition-signing a religious right conspiracy of some sort? If so, it's not very effective. I checked Liberty University. That school has no weather-related department, but there are 22 faculty in the combined biology-chemistry unit. Of these, none have signed the petition. I also checked a Southern Baptist college from South Carolina. 2 of their 19 faculty had signed the petition. Both had a Ph. D. in chemistry.

Neither Clemson University (in South Carolina) or the University of South Carolina have a department of climate or weather studies, so far as I can determine, and I didn't check their faculties against the list. Nor does Georgia or the University of North Carolina. So I looked at Florida. 1502 persons from Florida signed the petition. Florida State University has a meteorology department, with 16 faculty. None of them have signed the petition.

There aren't many scientists with advanced degrees in meteorology, and not many academic departments in that subject, at all. Apparently few, if any, academics with credentials in climate and weather studies have signed the petition. Scientists with degrees in other types of science, including many without advanced degrees, and a few whose academic credentials in the sciences are suspect, probably make up the vast majority of signers.

From the Wikipedia article:
The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever."^[4] The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption , not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition . . . defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".^[5] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature^[6][7] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences." (emphasis and links in the original)

The McCain-Palin campaign page does not explicitly say that humans contribute to climate change, but it assumes it. The page has a plan for mitigating emission of greenhouse gases. The GOP platform says explicitly that climate change is caused by human activity ("The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.") Sarah Palin is on record as doubting, or denying, that humans are responsible, for climate change. This, of course, is not the first time that a national candidate has disagreed with a running mate, or with the party platform, on all sorts of issues.

Why is there such widespread doubt of the conclusions of scientific experts, who say that humans have and are contributing to climate change? I am not sure of all of the reasons. One reason, I suspect, is the involvement of Al Gore, who was the Democratic presidential candidate in 2000, in this field. (He won a Nobel Prize for his involvement.) A lot of Republicans, and others, don't much like Mr. Gore. (Many people do, of course!) Ideally, it doesn't matter who is responsible for bringing a message, but what should matter is whether the message is valid, but it doesn't always work that way.

Another reason, of course, is that we usually don't want to hear bad news, if that news means that we will have to change our habits and thinking. Doing something about global warming would also mean changes in many industries.

What does the Bible have to do with all this?
Well, in the first place, some Christians believe that Revelation 16:8-9 may refer to global warming. Maybe. It's difficult to know what just about any particular passage in Revelation means.

Second, some Christians invoke Genesis 8:22, part of God's promise to Noah, that day and night, and the seasons, would continue, as meaning that there can be no global warming. But that verse doesn't say that the seasons will always be identical. There is considerable evidence of an ice age, although perhaps that was before the time of Noah. There was apparently a Little Ice Age since the time of Christ. There have been times in the past, in various parts of the world, when the climate was significantly warmer than usual for that area, or colder, or drier, or wetter. The passage doesn't rule out times when it will get warmer than we are used to.

Third, and, I believe, most important, some Christians reject science in general, as anti-God. Although the charge is not without some foundation, it is an oversimplification, at best, and short-sighted and unbiblical.

Why an oversimplification? Because many important scientists, from, say, Copernicus through Francis Collins, head of the US human genome project, have been believers.

Why short-sighted? Because rejecting scientific findings unnecessarily alienates potential followers of Christ. "If they are so wrong about the science, why should they be right about salvation?"

Why unbiblical? Because God reveals Himself in more than one way, according the the Bible. Psalm 19:1-4 tells us that God is revealed through nature, which means that scientific findings can tell us something of God's nature and power. Romans 1 says: "20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV, which version allows quotation for uses such as this, if properly cited.) Does that mean that scientists are always right? Of course not. There was a time, in the previous century, when the scientific consensus was that genes were made of protein, not DNA. That was wrong. Scientists have made other mistakes, and will continue to make some. But that doesn't mean that consensus science should be rejected out of hand. It's usually right, and its findings are part of God's revelation to us. Mistakes have been made, and will be made, in the interpretation of the Bible, too. That doesn't mean that we should ignore it. The Bible is always right, and our understanding of it usually is.

Am I absolutely certain that there is real global warming, and that humans are partly or entirely causing it? No. But the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the field, around the world, is that there is, and that we are acting such as to accelerate it. Christians, and others, should take the warnings about global warming seriously. We have responsibility, under God, for the world around us, and for the well-being of our own offspring.

*This statement, based on Bob Jones University's own web site, is not meant to disparage that institution, or this particular faculty member. I have no advanced degree in physics, but taught that subject at two accredited institutions of higher education, as justified by my experience in the field. This experience was accepted by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the accrediting agency,for both of these institutions. Probably this faculty member is a similar situation, and has significant experience not indicated by his degree. Or it is possible that BJU has included broadcast engineering in their science department. But I should not be taken as seriously as an expert on physics. Or at least not as seriously as a person with an advanced degree in the field would be. It wouldn't seem that a person with a bachelor's in broadcast engineering as his highest degree would have anything very authoritative to say about climate change, either.

Thanks for reading!

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

We recently saw the documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which is narrated by Al Gore, former U. S. Senator from Tennessee, Vice-President, and Democratic candidate for President in 2000. It appears to be an expanded version of a presentation on global warming which Gore has been presenting all over the world. To summarize, we were impressed. There is an official website for this movie. Here's the Wikipedia article on the movie. The best web site, showing many of the graphics used in the movie, and, more or less, outlining the presentation, is here.

If you can't stand Gore, you won't be able to stand this movie, as he appears in it a lot, and is the narrator, when one is needed. He did take a couple of digs at the Republicans, but I wouldn't classify this as a partisan movie. It is a movie which, in dramatic fashion, sets forth the evidence that there really is such a thing as global warming, and that we need to do something about it. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, some politicians insist that there is reasonable doubt as to whether human activity is contributing to global warming. I don't believe that there is, and this movie dramatically confirms that, presenting several kinds of scientific evidence on the subject, and an analysis of scientific articles on the subject, showing that there is consensus among scientists. Gore also shoots down two other myths about global warming, namely that this is merely a cyclical phenomenon, and that cutting down on Carbon Dioxide emission has to mean loss of jobs.

Gore has never been a great orator, but he does well enough here to get his point across. His point is that Carbon Dioxide emissions are going up, that we are the main reason for that, that we need to do something about this, and that there are real and practical things that we can do. He seems to be very well informed on the subject. There is also a book with the same name.

This is not a Christian film. However, at the end, one of the admonitions is, for those who pray, to pray about this matter. Gore also says that dealing with global warming is an ethical matter.

This is not Gore's first book about environmental matters. Here is a quote from the previous one:
If it is possible to steer one's own course -- and I do believe it is -- then I am convinced that the place to start is with faith, which for me is akin to a kind of spiritual gyroscope that spins in its own circumference in a stabilizing harmony with what is inside and what is out. Of course, faith is just a word unless it is invested with personal meaning; my own faith is rooted in the unshakeable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of and relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things. But I also want to affirm what people of faith from long ago apparently knew and that our civilization has obscured: that there is revelatory power in the world. This is the essence of faith: to make a surrendering decision to invest belief in a spiritual reality larger than ourselves. And I believe that faith is the primary force that enables us to choose meaning and direction and then hold to it despite all the buffeting chaos in life. - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992, page 367-368.
I recommend this film, and that its message be taken to heart.

Thanks for reading.

How much global warming is due to human activity?

In a recent comment, I was asked how much global warming was due to human activity, as opposed to natural climate fluctuations, errors in measurement, and other phenomena beyond our control. (This Wikipedia article explains global warming well, with many links. It allows that there is, indeed, uncertainty over its cause.) My short answer, of course, is that I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows for sure, either. However, it seems to me that if there is a case to be made for human acceleration of global warming, we don't need to know exactly how much we are doing, if what we are doing has bad effects. We don't know for sure if a particular smoker will die of lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to stop smoking. We do know that some smokers do die of lung cancer.

Is there any such thing as global warming at all? There is, indeed, some controversy over this, but, like some other controversies, my impression is that there shouldn't be--some people are misinformed, or are deliberately producing misinformation, and encouraging others to disbelieve global warming. For whatever reason, those who disbelieve global warming tend to be conservative Christians or Republicans. (The two are not necessarily the same!) As an example, I saw Jerry Falwell on the CBS Early Show, on October 14th, 2005. He used the phrase ". . . the myth of global warming." (Harry Smith, the moderator, was doing a segment "Is God Mad at Us?" and Falwell was one of the guests. He said that God was not mad at us. Bill Nye, the Science Guy, another guest, said that he expected more hurricanes because of global warming.)

Back to the question. Is there really global warming? I believe so. (See the New Scientist report, updated occasionally, on Climate Change. See the Wikipedia article for data going back to 1860.)

And, again, to the question that started all this. Assuming there is global warming, how much of it is due to human activity? All I can say is that some of it is, and that, if we can do so, we should take action to cut back on such human activity, by, for example, cutting down on the emission of greenhouse gases in burning, by making transportation more efficient, and the like. I don't think we want to be responsible for the melting of the polar icecaps. This would change the environment radically, to say nothing of putting many of earth's large cities, which are located at or near sea level, in jeopardy. Apparently it would lead to more hurricanes.

Would there be effects on the economy? Yes, of course. A change, such as, say, giving up gasoline-powered automobiles entirely, would cause some change, and it is understandable that it would be resisted by people who would expect to be negatively affected by such changes. Radical changes in how we do things are never easy, and care should be taken to minimize the effects on people as much as possible. However, changes are not necessarily all bad. It is almost certain that new industries, and new jobs, would arise related to any changes in how we transport ourselves, heat our homes, etc.