Crosswalk.com aims to offer the most compelling biblically-based content to Christians on their walk with Jesus. Crosswalk.com is your online destination for all areas of Christian Living – faith, family, fun, and community. Each category is further divided into areas important to you and your Christian faith including Bible study, daily devotions, marriage, parenting, movie reviews, music, news, and more.

Regis Nicoll Christian Blog and Commentary

Some Real Inconvenient Truths

  • Regis Nicoll
    Regis Nicoll is a Centurion of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He spent 30 years as a nuclear specialist, and is now a freelance writer who writes on current issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and SALVO magazine among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. He currently serves as lay pastor of Hamilton Anglican Fellowship (www.hamiltonaf.org) in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
  • 2007 Mar 03
  • Comments

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”

 --Al Gore (quoting Mark Twain)

 

A night with Oscar

During the Academy Awards this year, I found myself wondering whether I was watching a run-up to the Democratic National Convention. Among the celebrants was one who was honored with presenting an Oscar, receiving two, and being urged on more than one occasion to “make an announcement.” The celebrant was Al Gore, and the night belonged to him.  Oh, and his film was An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary showcasing the scientific evidence for global warming.

 

In a separate incident at The Point, I said this about the “discovery” of Jesus’s remains by James Cameron and Co.: “[T]his whole exercise—a filmmaker doing archaeology—reminds one of a certain politician doing climate science.”  That went under the radar until a reader took me to task for taking a “cheap shot at Al Gore” who has brought “attention to a virtual consensus of peer-reviewed scientific analysis of global climate change” and who “has long been passionate about this issue.” Hmm.

 

Some truths

Well over at the National Review Online, Iain Murray discusses 25 inconvenient truths about the companion book to Mr. Gore’s award-winning film including,

 

On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

 

Some more truths

Having watched Mr. Gore’s award-winning film earlier this year, I have a few additions to Iain Murray’s list.

 

During the time Mr. Gore got “religion” about global warming (in the late 60’s early 70’s), I seem to recall that global cooling was all the rage.

 

Mr. Gore states that “I don't really consider this a political issue, I consider it to be a moral issue.” Really, now? Then why the scenes of “chit-counting” in the aftermath of the 2000 election and remarks such as “I used to be the next president of the United States?”

 

Then there are remarks like these: “We got everything we need, save perhaps, political will,” and “In America political will is a renewable resource?” One gets the clear impression from the film that had the 2000 election turned out differently we would be well on our way to a solution.

Yet, if my memory serves me, Mr. Gore had eight years as VP to effect his vision and will. Funny, the only thing I remember happening during that time was that the Clinton Senate passed a bipartisan resolution in opposition to Kyoto by 95-0.

 

So hopefully you’ll pardon my analogy with James Cameron.

 

Those interested in a fuller explanation of my thoughts about global warming and my suggestion for a more fruitful approach, can click here. Otherwise, what are your thoughts? Post them here.