Is Global Warming Really the Issue?

My friend Dan sent me an interesting New York Times article, With Findings on Storms, Centrist Recasts Warming Debate, about the views of hurricane specialist (analyzingwise, not creatingwise) Kerry Emmanual. My father was a research chemist, and I've been around many physical scientists. This guy's candid reflections strike me as typical of most scientists. You can tell how much he loves what he does, but you can also tell how much he appreciates what he doesn't know. Emmanual doesn't make any definitive conclusion about the causes of global warming and appears to be keeping an open mind. I don't see how anyone can look at the scientific data and NOT conclude that over the past century, temperatures have warmed. They have. The big questions are why and can we do anything about it? Furthermore, if we can do something about it, should we?

I have pointed out in recent posts that we appear to be emerging from a mini-ice age that covered the last couple of centuries or so, and our average global temperature is still below the average for the millennium. We hear about all the potential disasters that may happen because of warming, but is it possible that there will be some off-setting benefits?

One statement made by Emmanual is very revealing.

When I was a child, we lived in Florida for three years, and I went through of a couple of hurricanes and was very impressed by them. Later, at M.I.T., I was asked to teach a course in tropical meteorology, which included hurricanes.

As I started preparing, I realized I didn't understand what I'd been taught on the subject. As with many things, you think you understand something until you try to teach it. After some reading, I realized that the reigning theory had to be wrong.

This theory held that the main thing that drives a hurricane is just ingestion of enormous quantities of water vapor from the atmospheric environment. It made predictions that weren't true. So it became a very big intellectual challenge to me. The more I got into it, the more interesting it became.

Here is the thing I found significant. Emmanual is not some fossil of a scientist discussing theories from fifty years ago. He is talking about the work of scientists in this generation, who are still just trying to get a grip on hurricanes! Nevertheless, some would have us believe that carbon dioxide emissions are THE unquestioned cause of global warming (a vastly more complex interaction of factors than a hurricane) and we must use draconian measures to alter human behavior, even at the risk of creating a global economic meltdown.

Emmanuel suggests that there is no firm link between more hurricanes and global warming but does suggest that there is likely at least some marginal effect. Another part of the article I liked was the following exchange.

Q. There are scientists who say of fossil fuel consumption and global warming, We may not have all the evidence yet, but we ought to be acting as if the worst could happen. Do you agree?

A. It's always struck me as odd that this country hasn't put far more resources into research on alternative energy. Europeans are. France has managed to go 85 percent nuclear in its electrical generation. And the Europeans have gotten together to fund a major nuclear fusion project. It almost offends my pride as a U.S. scientist that we've fallen down so badly in this competition.

At first, I suspected he was just "getting in touch with his inner weasel." But then it occurred to me that this is what I believe. He skillfully avoided taking a position about something we can't yet scientifically explain, but he suggested action that points to being responsible stewards of the environment regardless of the causes of global warming. (I realize nuclear energy may not be a responsible choice to some, but his vision of finding alternatives is what I am noting.) And that, my friends, whether it is coming from Presbyterian advocacy groups or the National Association of Evangelicals, is what concerns me the most about the "be good stewards because of global warming" mantra. We are to be the best stewards of the earth that our technology and knowledge allow us to be because that is what God asks of us ! The first motivates people out of fear, while the second approach is out of faithful obedience to God. What happens if it turns out global warming has nothing to do with human activity? What is our basis for environmentalism, then?