Should you get your science from the IPCC or the Bible?

i-0acab65c0f7ec4204b6039ad154e26f1-031009LunchMonckton.jpg

Folks are commenting on John Shimkus’ act with Monckton at the Congressional hearing on adaptation to climate change. For example, PZ Myers:

Shimkus explain how he knows CO2 is not a problem. It’s because the Bible is the inerrant word of his god, and he knows god isn’t going to end the world with global warming.

Steve Benen

There’s a genuine policy discussion to be had about climate change. If policymakers like Shimkus and Barton represent the mainstream of House Republican thought, this discussion won’t be bipartisan. Indeed, for humanity’s sake, it can’t be.

Kevin Grandia:

Republicans don’t want to hear from real scientists like the climatologists at NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. They prefer to hear only from people who parrot the right wing’s forgone conclusions — what’s good for Big Business and polluting industries is best for America.

Fossil fuel pollution equals life, and anyone who says otherwise hates salad.

But there are some more gems from the hearing. Calvin Beisner testified as to why he thinks that the “atheistic” IPCC is wrong:

When God finished His creation, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Do you think he would have judged a fragile system biased by unidirectional feedbacks toward destruction that way? No, He would not. Indeed, the global destruction of the Flood required His supernatural intervention (Genesis 6-8), after which He promised Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man …; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:21-22)-the repeated pairs of opposites being the poetic device called merism, implying that God had committed Himself to ensuring that all the cycles needed for human (and other) thriving would continue.

In other words, if climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 is 3 degrees, there is no God.

And since the hearing was about adaptation to climate change, it is interesting to see Monckton’s notion of adaptation:

In the Middle Ages it was warmer worldwide than today. Then global cooling set in. Our ancestors adapted. The Vikings abandoned their settlements in Greenland.

Only if by “abandoned” you mean “starved to death in”. I don’t think that dying off really should count as adaptation.

Comments

#1 guthrie
April 3, 2009

Argh, the greenlanders were Icelandic descendants of Vikings. Its like the viking enthusiasts at the re-enactment of the battle of Largs, who conveniently overlook the fact that the battle was about the Norwegian King being nasty to the uppity Scots. Nothing to do with Vikings.

Moreover its like with Richard COurtney- they’ll point ot evidence of the world being warmer in the medieval period, but the simple fact is that the evidence shows it being warmer in one century in one part of the world at the same time as it is cooler in others, such that the warm period peaks at several different times depending on where you look.
Compared to today when almost everywhere is warming as expected.
#2 bug_girl
April 3, 2009

whoa. That’s amazing. and depressing
#3 larrydalooza
April 3, 2009

I pray to AGW that we overcome the evil CO2. AGW bless America.
#4 Ian Forrester
April 3, 2009

Here is another quote from Beisner’s presentation:

“I speak to you as a theologian and pastor, a former professor of social ethics, and the national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a network of religious leaders, scientists, and economists dedicated to bringing Biblical world view, theology, and ethics together with excellent science and excellent economics to address simultaneously the challenges of economic development for the very poor and effective stewardship of creation”.

And another one:

“The naturalist, atheistic world view sees Earth and all its ecosystems as the result of chance processes and therefore inherently unstable and fragile, vulnerable to enormous harm from tiny causes. The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating–like the product of any good engineer who ensures that the systems he designs have positive and negative feedback mechanisms to balance each other and prevent small perturbations from setting off a catastrophic cascade of reactions”.

There are 11 pages of this drivel. Anyone interested in reading the rest can find it at:

http://tinyurl.com/dcw53g
#5 bi -- IJI
April 3, 2009

But if Beisner and Monckton know that God won’t end the world with global warming, why do they think that God will end the world by letting OSAMABAMARAMA!!! control the entire universe and plunge us all into a new Dark Age where everyone will live in caves?

> When God finished His creation, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Vidítque Deus Christophorum Monctonem quem fecit, et erat valdè stultus.
#6 Former Skeptic
April 3, 2009

A bit OT, but is there an online compilation of funny Discount Monckton pictures anywhere? That man has a future in the comedy circuit.
#7 William Hyde
April 3, 2009

Actually, it isn’t clear that all the Greenlanders starved to death. As I understand it the idea that the eastern settlement was abandoned circa 1500 is a respectable, if minority, view. Monckton can’t be wrong about everything, try as he will.

William Hyde
#8 Dano
April 3, 2009

In other words, if climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 is 3 degrees, there is no God.

Man fouling his nest in general, and man-made climate change in particular falsifies many conservatarian ideologies, stances, self-identities, etc.

Best,

D
#9 Nick
April 3, 2009

“That man has a future in the comedy circuit” He already has a very busy ‘present’ in the comedy circuit…visit Moncktonworld for show-reel and testimonials.
#10 Ezzthetic
April 4, 2009

the Bible is the inerrant word of his god, and he knows god isn’t going to end the world with global warming.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that, for some of us, Monckton is God.
#11 bi -- IJI
April 4, 2009

Calvin Beisner:

> the IPCC exaggerates the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere largely because its computer models all assume that clouds are a positive feedback–that they respond to rising surface temperature by trapping still more heat. But University of Alabama climatologist Roy Spencer, using data from NASA satellites, has shown the opposite: warming clouds diminish as surface temperature rises, allowing more heat to radiate out to space. The system works like a thermostat, keeping surface temperature within a narrow range well suited to human and other life on Earth.

> The Biblical world view prepares us for just such findings.

In other words, Roy Spencer is obviously right, while the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC reports are obviously wrong, as can be seen if we get our science from (Beisner’s interpretation of) the Bible. OK…
#12 Barton Paul Levenson
April 4, 2009

Shimkus is breaking the third commandment, which says, “Thou shalt not use the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold guiltless him who uses his name in vain.” The commandment is often taken just to be about careless langu8age, but what it’s really talking about is taking your own pronouncements and adding “Thus saith the LORD” to them. It’s nothing less than blasphemous to insist that God endorses your political views and that those who oppose them are therefore opposing God.

The Christian perspective on the environment should center around the fact that “The Earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). God gave us a beautiful habitable planet, a rare thing in the universe. We’re supposed to be taking care of it, not trashing it.
#13 Boris
April 4, 2009

Wow, these people are morons. Haven’t they considered that global warming could be the work of the DEVIL?

Think about it, the devil created fossils to confound us about the true age of the earth, so it makes sense that burning those fossils (burning? fire? hell? HELLO) would be harmful.

In fact, the CO2 molecule is shaped like a head with two big horns. And creating this devil compound makes the world HOTTER.

Finally carbon dioxide is an anagram for: IRONIC DEAD BOX!

I rest my beautiful, unassailable case.
#14 (((Billy))) The Atheist
April 4, 2009

Boris, you make more sense than the idiots quoted in the article. Don’t get too excited; the apple snail in my fish tank also makes more sense.
#15 Paul
April 4, 2009

Re Ian’s Quoting of Beisner

>”The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating–like the product of any good engineer who ensures that the systems he designs have positive and negative feedback mechanisms to balance each other and prevent small perturbations from setting off a catastrophic cascade of reactions”.

Yeah but that assumes ‘the great architect’ as Freemasons call it has created a system that humanity can not unbalance. There isn’t anything in the Bible that says ‘God’ created the earth so that it can’t be unbalanced to such an extent that most humans wouldn’t survive the resulting change. God is more likely to ‘engineer’ the earth so that humans can do right and wrong to it and suffer the consequences of those actions in the afterlife!

In fact it would be unethical to risk unbalancing the system to the point where fellow human beings were in danger of losing their lives (the Bible doesn’t say ignorance is excused). The Bible doesn’t say that God will compensate, in fact what it does say is that such harm will be accounted for later!
Christians that believe that they can not do wrong by cutting down trees or ruining the seas is not understanding the basic principles of the religion.
#16 bi -- IJI
April 4, 2009

Rock:

> Wait a minute… the bible and the time of the dinosaurs? I thought that the theological view as that the earth was only six thousand years old.

> So what were the carbon ppms in Eden? If we’re going to have an objective debate based on science, those are the questions we need to answer.

Heheheh.
#17 TrueSceptic
April 4, 2009

#6 Former Skeptic,

Whadya mean “future in the comedy circuit”? Where do you think he is now?

BTW I hope you mean “real” or “true” sceptic, not “former”. We’re the sceptics. Most GW “sceptics” are nothing of the sort: they are dishonest, incompetent, or delusional deniers (I like “denidiots”).
#18 Dano
April 4, 2009

Ahhh…Boris has cracked the DaHinkey code: when CO₂ ppmv reaches 666, then the second coming starts. No wonnnnnnder the fundies are driving SUVs to Walmart to purchase oodles of cheap cr*p.

Best,

D
#19 Paul
April 4, 2009

>Ahhh…Boris has cracked the DaHinkey code: when CO2 ppmv reaches 666, then the second coming starts.

Don’t you mean the second warming?
#20 Former Skeptic
April 4, 2009

#9 Nick and #17 TrueSceptic:

Point taken about Discount Monckton’s ["current" comedy rounds](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/17/loldenialist.jpg). Sadly, I know a few folks who still do take the potty peer rather seriously.

And yes, I am being ironic about my nick.
#21 James Haughton
April 4, 2009

Someone should send this to Ian Plimer so he can see who he’s in bed with. Might make his head explode.
#22 TrueSceptic
April 5, 2009

20 Former Skeptic,

Lord Munchkin is about my age so he will amuse us for a long time yet.

It’s funny how he likes to impress with his title but the Viscountcy of Brenchley was created for his grandfather in 1957. His grandfather appears to have been a very capable politician and a man of principles.
#23 MikeB
April 5, 2009

Re #22 – Actually his grandfather was a well-connected, cunning lawyer, who later moved into politics. How that translates into ‘a man of principles’ is possibly another matter. His father was a decent soldier who retired and then took up various hobbies, including campaigning in the House of Lords to get cats to wear muzzles (to stop them eating birds).

The current Lord Munchkin seems to live in a fantasy world of his own – seemingly as if someone had gene-spliced Jeffery Archer and Bertie Wooster http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange.

He will indeed amuse us for some time to come, although the joke is starting to wear a little thin.
#24 Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
April 6, 2009

“Its like the viking enthusiasts at the re-enactment of the battle of Largs, who conveniently overlook the fact that the battle was about the Norwegian King being nasty to the uppity Scots.”

Well, there were probably Norwegians and Scots on both sides (Dougal is mentioned as a Scottish vassal of the Norwegian king), at least if the Irish Battle of Clontarf is a model. And probably several Irish and Viking mercenaries.

There’s a problem in interpreting battles in the pre-nation-state era in a time of solid nation-states, especially when said battles have had layers of meaning placed on them that the participants wouldn’t have placed on them.

Oh, and Monckton and Shimkus are teh crazy.
#25 Laser Potato
April 8, 2009

His blood is pure Hi-C
There’s syrup on his pies
Bad hypertension? Oui!
He’s got Marty Feldman Eyes
#26 P. Lewis
April 8, 2009

Kim Carnes or Jackie DeShannon fan?
#27 guthrie
April 8, 2009

Sock puppet- the small problem with using the word viking in connection with the battle of Largs is that I can’t find any definition of the word, or recall reading any history, which has any vikings later than the 11th century, ie 200 years earlier.
Now yes, to some extent there are modern interpretations laid upon these things, but there is a distinct difference between various people going raiding in the 10th century, and the Norwegian King attempting retaliation for Scottish actions against some of his far flung dominions.
#28 Climate Journal
February 27, 2010

I would prefer not to get my science from a railway engineer who is making millions out of closing down a steel works in the UK and transferring the factory and jobs to India.
#29 John
February 27, 2010

No you’d rather get it from a fake lord who gives awards to himself.
#30 Lotharsson
February 28, 2010

In other words, if climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 is 3 degrees, there is no God.

Hey, that’s a two-fer in my book
#31 Lotharsson
February 28, 2010

I would prefer not to get my science from a railway engineer who is making millions out of closing down a steel works in the UK and transferring the factory and jobs to India

But most of all you’d prefer not to get your science from the scientists.