We now know of the hoax of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. The revealed emails show the manipulation of information. There is nothing left to doubt except the leftist politicians. But what do we do now? Here are some ideas:
1) Ask Honda and Toyota to produce diesels instead of hybrids.
2) Challenge Congress on the Cap & Trade tax excuse. Challenge them to shelve it entirely. And return any tax dollars disbursed to reinforce this hoax.
3) Challenge President Obama to apologize for his error.
4) Challenge Al Gore to apologize.
5) Challenge the emergent and postmodern theologians to apologize and remediate their accompanying theological errors.
Of course there is much more that we can do. But we must begin by actively communicating with the apologists.
Related posts:
November 24th, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #1
The problem is that this has never been about the truth but about power. Those who advocate radical redistribution of wealth and resources want the control that comes with making the State the place people go to feel safe. The totalitarian impulse of the Left these days is getting out of control. Remember, Al Gore compared deniers of global warming to deniers of the Holocaust, he and his Democratic Party followers are not going to give up their world view very easily.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:40 pm | #2
The revealed emails show the manipulation of information.
I’ve heard a little about this, but no substantial details. Could you provide a source link? Thanks.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:41 pm | #3
Wow — and I thought I was taking a risk by pointing out the Evangelical/Catholic divide.
Dream Big, Collin — that’s the sort of stuff I’d love to see but can’t be overly-optimistic about.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:42 pm | #4
Bob,
Some select emails:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
Frank,
Sell your stock in GE.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:46 pm | #5
Bob,
Here’s some discussion. The first article includes links to the source emails, for the context of the quotes.
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
Hiding evidence of global cooling
November 24th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #6
They uploaded all the emails for public view at a searchable archive here.
It’s really bad. The “scientists” have been covering up “inconvenient” data, cherry-picking and fabricating other data, destroying some data, and refusing to release data used in their “studies.” And they know they have been doing so.
Some more emails can be seen here, but you can search the archive yourself.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:21 pm | #7
Collin:
You won’t believe this, but I work in the renewables industry.
There’s not a soul here talking about the implications of those e-mails.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #8
For an exercise in media trickery, y’all should also take a look at this article from The Australian. It’s the first article I read about ClimateGate.
Hackers expose climate brawl
I read this article and thought, “This whole ClimateGate thing looks like a tempest in a teapot.” Why? Because they quote:
1.) The emails where the writers act like jerks. (So what?)
2.) The emails about the current Global Cooling trend. (Which we already knew about!)
What they left out? Everything about perverting peer-review by marginalizing dissenting journals, and everything about circumventing FOI and perverting the scientific method by hiding & deleting data. They only included one passing reference to manipulating data–and not even in those terms. (Near the end, they included one reference to data being “beefed up”.)
In other words, it looks like they constructed a narrative that makes the whole thing dismissible. (I was ready to dismiss it, till I read more articles.)
November 24th, 2009 | 4:24 pm | #9
Thanks for the sources, all. I often hate the infernet, but this kind of thing makes it almost worthwhile.
November 24th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #10
And just think — if Obama gets his way with media justice I would not have been able to publish this “rumor” without consequence.
November 24th, 2009 | 7:30 pm | #11
This post is a joke, right?
November 24th, 2009 | 7:38 pm | #12
Not a joke at all. Many have been critical of human-caused gw, but not the warming trend we did go through. The History Channel did a great job when they dealt with the Little Ice Age from roughly 1200 – 1850 and gave the geological explanation for gw.
Over the last few years we’ve put up with a “science” that works on numbers that it won’t release for peer review. And these emails explain why.
November 24th, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #13
Here is an enlightening video of Ed Begley Jr. going on the attack over those who doubt global warming. Expect more of this from the media. Belief in global warming has reached a religious fervor among the Left and their idol is not going to go quietly. The interview really picks up at about 3:40
November 24th, 2009 | 7:55 pm | #14
You know what I love about this blog? The absolute lack of a sense of humor. It’s what makes you guys hi – lar – io – us! The left. Those bogeymen. Let’s get ‘em!
November 24th, 2009 | 8:37 pm | #15
Unfrozen Caveman Evangelical wants to know what this information has to do with the evangel or evangelicalism.
Something, I’m sure. Just help me out. Your world frightens and confuses me.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #16
Me too, Jared. Let’s watch Encino Man. Bu—ddy.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #17
@Jared,
From a theological perspective, the hype over global warming and man’s ability to control nature is in essence an attempt to dethrone the one true living God. The idols that were dominant in Old Testament times have made a come back and worshiping nature is a central part of pagan idolatry.
And politically, the hysteria over global warming is used to dominate and dictate every aspect of our lives. You think health care rationing is going to be bad under ObamaCare, just wait until your driving, your food, your electricity and your family size is regulated because of fear about global warming.
November 24th, 2009 | 11:00 pm | #18
But seriously: we’ll have to wait a month or two and see how this news plays out.
Seriously, all we have right now is the word of a hacker
November 25th, 2009 | 9:36 am | #19
Jared,
A lot. It goes to the future of religious liberty in a world that demands a crisis response from a strong government.
The sad irony is that the secular modern world created the capitalism that (supposedly) created the problem, and now secularism thinks it can fix the problem by instituting a Very Strong Government, not unlike the power of kings that it came about to replace. We’ve come, nearly, full circle.
November 25th, 2009 | 9:45 am | #20
“This post is a joke, right?”
I second that. Evidence of manipulation by one group of academics is proof that the whole thing is a fraud? How is that a logical leap?
November 25th, 2009 | 10:39 am | #21
No, but manipulation of data and hiding behind falsified data certainly do. After all, this is the foundational material that they are working from.
November 25th, 2009 | 10:47 am | #22
[...] question was raised by Jared regarding the significance of Leftist concerns (to me and to this site) and our [...]
November 25th, 2009 | 12:08 pm | #23
We now know of the hoax of calculus. The revealed correspondence shows the manipulation of information. There is nothing left to doubt except the leftist politicians. But what do we do now? Here are some ideas:
1) Ask Honda and Toyota to stop designing cars using Newton’s “laws” of motion and so-called “differential equations.”
2) Challenge Congress to dismantle the NSF, NIH, NASA, and the Smithsonian. And return any tax dollars disbursed to reinforce this hoax.
3) Challenge President Obama to apologize for his error.
4) Challenge Al Gore to apologize.
5) Challenge the C17th-18th theologians to apologize and remediate their accompanying theological errors.
Of course there is much more that we can do to challenge the vested interests in classical mechanics. But we must begin by actively communicating with the apologists.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:30 pm | #24
Gary Simmons, keep reading.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:34 pm | #25
Jared asks “what this information has to do with the evangel or evangelicalism.”
Answer #1 from Todd – “From a theological perspective, the hype over global warming and man’s ability to control nature is in essence an attempt to dethrone the one true living God.”
We manipulate nature every day – electricity, nuclear reactors, antibiotics, etc. Are these an attempt to dethrone God? Admitting that what man does has an effect(the extent of which is debatable) on nature is dethroning God? I just don’t get that. Or its connection to the evangel.
Answer #2 from Collin – “It goes to the future of religious liberty in a world that demands a crisis response from a strong government.”
Because religious liberty is a right guaranteed us by the Gospel?
I’d say the two answers Jared got have nothing to do with the evangel and everything to do with evangelicalism in its current form.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #26
Because religious liberty is a right guaranteed us by the Gospel?
Because a certain level of religious liberty is necessary for the spread of the Gospel. Always has been, always will be.
November 25th, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #27
Joe – Can you explain your last comment a bit more? When I look at the church, it seems the places with the most growth have the least liberty and the most stagnant have the most. (See the growth of the church during Roman persecutions or the church in Communist China, for example.)
November 25th, 2009 | 1:30 pm | #28
I’m with Jake on that one. It seems to me that, if anything, a certain level of non-religious-liberty is necessary for the spread of the gospel.
Look at history, its persecution, not permission, that grows the church the most.
Joel Hunter,
The only thing new in this latest round of information is the plain cover-up. The data showing that global warming has stopped and that it had nothing to do with man, well that’s been out there for a while.
November 25th, 2009 | 2:23 pm | #29
Jake (See the growth of the church during Roman persecutions or the church in Communist China, for example.)
While persecutions certainly seem to have the effect of creating fervency in the believers, the claim that it produces greater numbers of believers is more myth than fact. As Rodney Stark notes in “The Rise of Christianity” about Roman persecutions: “persecutions rarely occurred and only a tiny number of Christians were martyred . . . There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians . . . Thus for rank and file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them. (p. 179-180)
It was only under Constantine and other religion-friendly rulers did the true growth occur (though the numbers of Christians by that time had already reached the point where they had little choice but to allow them freedom).
As for China, Christians have been in that country since the third century—longer than almost anyplace on earth. Yet there are relatively few Christians. Persecution by the communists began in 1949 yet growth in the number of Christians didn’t’ really start occurring until the loosening of restrictions on religion in the 1970s.
Currently, there are estimated to be 40 million Christians out of a population of 1,325,639,982. That’s only 4% of the population. The percentages are higher in almost every country in which religious liberty exists, including states like France that are extremely unchurched.
Persecution limits access to the gospel which naturally limits the number of people who will respond to the faith. I realize its popular to think that persecution is actually good for the faith, but historically there is little evidence to support that position.
Personally, I’d rather live in a country where the gospel can be proclaimed openly and honestly and without restriction. That, to me, seems to be the best approach if we want to share the Word.
November 25th, 2009 | 2:40 pm | #30
Personally, I’d rather live in a country where the gospel can be proclaimed openly and honestly and without restriction.
Well, who wouldn’t? Only masochists.
Put it to a vote: I’ll vote for it.
But where do we see this concern in the ministry of Jesus? Where in Paul?
I think only extremists would argue we should care nothing about the State or how we govern ourselves through it. But surely the concerns of evangelicalism have flip-flopped the concerns of Scripture’s, to make what is only inferred in Scripture the modus operandi and made the modus operandi only inferred.
It’s a bizarre state when the open and honest gospel proclamation gets all sorts of scrutiny within the Church but the hand-wringing of cultural concern is assumed as normative.
An implied gospel is a gospel fail.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:15 pm | #31
Well, who wouldn’t? Only masochists.
And pseudo-masochists. I’ve heard a lot of people claim over the years to “pray for persecution.” Yet I suspect that if real persecution (not this “War on Christmas” style nonsense) were to come they’d freak out.
But where do we see this concern in the ministry of Jesus? Where in Paul?
Where do we see the concern for religious liberty in Jesus and Paul? Well, I think Jesus began his earthly ministry when he did in large part because he knew that it was a time when the gospel could spread throughout the world because of the order and liberty established by Rome.
Did he speak about the importance of religious liberty directly? No. But then he did not speak about the importance for air in the lungs which is also necessary for verbal proclamation. Arguments from silence are rarely tell us how much about the importance people put on a subject.
But surely the concerns of evangelicalism have flip-flopped the concerns of Scripture’s, to make what is only inferred in Scripture the modus operandi and made the modus operandi only inferred.
I think this is true only if we have people that truly believe that politics is more important that proclaiming the gospel. Personally, I don’t know any evangelicals that think that.
But just as not all pastors need to talk about politics, we shouldn’t assume that some evangelicals (particularly those who aren’t pastors) should talk about nothing else but the pure gospel.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, though, I would prefer that we talk about gospel-centric matters on this blog more often than not (75% of the time, perhaps?). I’d also prefer if there was a more clear line drawn between connecting the implications of the gospel and the topic being discussed, rather than assuming that such connections are obvious.
I personally don’t think much is gained by talking about Obama, or global warming, or other such issues on this particular blog (and least not in the way it has been done so far). I also don’t pay much attention to such posts since they are pretty much what I could get just about anywhere in the blogosphere.
It’s a bizarre state when the open and honest gospel proclamation gets all sorts of scrutiny within the Church but the hand-wringing of cultural concern is assumed as normative.
Why is that so bizarre? Shouldn’t an issue of monumental and eternal importance receive more scrutiny than issues of temporal and lesser concern?
Also, wouldn’t you agree that even an open and honest proclamation of the gospel should be open to evaluation, critique, and clarification? That, after all, was one of the reasons we started this blog. If everyone fully understood all of the nuances of the gospel there wouldn’t be much to say. It is only because there are so many areas that need to be fleshed out—not only for each other but for people who have never heard the full gospel—that such criticism is vitally needed.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #32
Jared –
I hate myself for loving you. In a totally godly and non-ungodly and completely-manly way.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:20 pm | #33
From NOAA – “For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest January-through-October period on record.”
Some cooling trend. This is like the opposite of Mt 16:3.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:21 pm | #34
Joe,
There are all kinds of things that are conducive to the spread of the Gospel that are not tied to the Gospel itself.
But back to what started the discussion, do we really want to say that religious liberty is an essential component of the evangel? And therefore any perceived threat to that liberty is on the same level of importance as the Gospel? Because what happens is that “threat” becomes a cause in and of itself and any slight connection it might have had to the Gospel becomes totally severed.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #35
Joe – Sorry, posted before I saw your response to Jared. Some of what you said applies to my comment as well.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:27 pm | #36
Did he speak about the importance of religious liberty directly? No. But then he did not speak about the importance for air in the lungs which is also necessary for verbal proclamation. Arguments from silence are rarely tell us how much about the importance people put on a subject.
Just to clarify: Jesus entered a Jewish culture that was under Roman occupation and oppression, a culture that long awaited the release of their nation from political and military and governmental and cultural captivity, to not only practice the full extent of their religion freely but to reclaim the promised land owed them, and they expected all this to be done by a revolutionary messiah — and Jesus didn’t speak directly to it.
Instead, because he was able to preach, we can infer the prevailing concerns of his compatriots, the concern we both agree he didn’t really speak directly to. Is that right?
Their concerns were a lot like ours, only more understandable. And Jesus’ silence can be inferred as affirmation?
I think this is true only if we have people that truly believe that politics is more important that proclaiming the gospel.
I don’t know any evangelicals who would agree, if pressed, that politics is more important than proclaiming the gospel. But I know they’d be lying because of what they say and do.
I don’t care what you say you believe when asked. I care about what you’re constantly saying says about what you really believe.
November 25th, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #37
Instead, because he was able to preach, we can infer the prevailing concerns of his compatriots, the concern we both agree he didn’t really speak directly to. Is that right?
I’m not quite sure what you are saying. The Jews in first century Palestine may not have enjoyed the occupation, but they had a great deal of religious freedom. The key, in my opinion, is whether they had the freedom needed to fulfill the primary obligations of their religion. In this respect I would say that it is obvious they did.
As for Christians, the primary obligation that necessitates the need for religious liberty—in my opinion—is the ability to preach the gospel freely. Other things may be important, though less so in relation to that. If the government banned sacrament wafers, I’d be upset but I wouldn’t think it was an issue worth dying over. The ability to freely proclaim the gospel, however, is something worth being martyred for. (And if its worth being martyred for, how much more is it worth standing up for in the public square.)
And Jesus’ silence can be inferred as affirmation?
No, I don’t think we can necessarily affirm anything solely from Jesus’ silence. That was my point. There are likely a number of issues that Jesus deemed to be important that we never heard about (“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25)
November 25th, 2009 | 4:12 pm | #38
Joe, what I’m saying is that the common evangelical’s concerns about religious liberty, the government recognizing America’s Christian heritage, the equivalency of Christianity with political conservatism, etc etc etc, are actually similar to the first century Jew’s concerns, only the first century Jew had them moreso (and more justifiably so). The cultural concerns of the first century Jew under Roman occupation/oppression was like America’s culture war on steroids.
But Jesus said virtually nothing about the state, except to pay your taxes.
Given that info, it makes the concerns of the American evangelical practically foreign to the testament of Scripture.
Ditto Paul, who sat in Roman prisons throughout his ministry. If anyone had a right to complain about legalities and religious freedom, it’d be him. But he didn’t. And when he talks about the persecution, he talks about it like an opportunity, not a liability.
All I’m saying is that in nearly all of modern evangelicalism’s concerns about what those dang Democrats are doing, we are taking inferences (if that) from Scripture and making them overarching concerns and taking Scripture’s overarching concerns and making them inferences.
November 25th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #39
All I’m saying is that in nearly all of modern evangelicalism’s concerns about what those dang Democrats are doing, we are taking inferences (if that) from Scripture and making them overarching concerns and taking Scripture’s overarching concerns and making them inferences.
I’ll agree that this does happen and that it is a real problem when it does occur.
The question, though, is how much is it really happening? Every Sunday in countries across the land, millions of evangelicals are hearing the gospel proclaimed. More evangelicals will hear the word of God being preached every week than will be involved in anything that has to do with politics.
If political concerns truly are the the primary concern of modern evangelicalism then we should certainly notice this in the blogosphere. So is that what we find? Think of the 10 or 20 most influential and popular evangelical bloggers. How many of them treat these issues as their primary concern?
I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem. But I think we have to keep it in perspective and not tarnish a movement of 50 million people because of the emphasis of a tiny minority of their members.
November 25th, 2009 | 4:47 pm | #40
how much is it really happening?
A lot.
But since you keep asking this after I keep complaining about the problem, I’ll be content from now on to remember you and I live in parallel evangelical universes. Glad things are awesome where you’re at. In my Bizarro World, the problem is huge. And I know I’m not the only one living here, seeing it.
Every Sunday in countries across the land, millions of evangelicals are hearing the gospel proclaimed.
Countries? Probably.
Churches in America? I really wish I could believe this.
November 25th, 2009 | 4:54 pm | #41
how much is it really happening? A lot.
Can you give me examples?
Also, aren’t you in Vermont? How many rabid politically-oriented evangelicals can there be in that state?
Glad things are awesome where you’re at. In my Bizarro World, the problem is huge. And I know I’m not the only one living here, seeing it.
So this is a problem in your congregation? Your city?
Churches in America? I really wish I could believe this.
Ah, you’re touching on a pet peeve of mine. When pastors start saying how the gospel is being preached in their church. . . its the other churches that are the problem, I start gritting my teeth.
Surely you are not really saying that in the majority of evangelical churches, the gospel is not being presented. If not then what is?
November 25th, 2009 | 5:01 pm | #42
If not then what is?
How much time you got?
Self-helpy legalism. Religious exhortations. Inspirational chit-chat. Motivational speeches. Analyses of movies. Social justice.
Read Horton’s “Christless Christianity.”
Read Jethani’s “Divine Commodity.”
Read Guinness’ “Dining with the Devil.”
Read my blog. :-)
November 25th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #43
Ditto Paul, who sat in Roman prisons throughout his ministry. If anyone had a right to complain about legalities and religious freedom, it’d be him. But he didn’t. And when he talks about the persecution, he talks about it like an opportunity, not a liability.
All I’m saying is that in nearly all of modern evangelicalism’s concerns about what those dang Democrats are doing, we are taking inferences (if that) from Scripture and making them overarching concerns and taking Scripture’s overarching concerns and making them inferences.
And Paul persecuted Christians before Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus. Jesus equated the persecution of Christians with the persecution of Himself. This is what Liberalism will lead to sine it is a false religion that redefines every critical Christian doctrine. Liberalism seeks to redefine what God calls evil and call it good, because of the relativism that permeates Liberal thought today, which is more in line with Marxism than anything else. Paul was persecuted for preaching the Gospel, the very thing Liberalism will lead to.
November 25th, 2009 | 5:41 pm | #44
Jared,
I am interested to know what you make of Joe’s point that the blogging community is representative of evangelicalism and its interests. I can’t think of a major evangelical writer who I would describe as being “focused on politics,” except maybe when elections are happening (which may be an appropriate time to be so focused).
Can I simply chime in to add that this is an important discussion and I, for one, am really thankful that you two are having it? I suspect (though I don’t know) I’m not alone in that..
Best,
Matt
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact