I really know nothing about global warming, but there’s such an interesting discussion going on in the comments to this post that I thought it deserved its own dedicated post. Just to kick things off, I’ll reprint Eyebrows McGee’s initial comment about it:
“Global Warming†is something of a misnomer, although a general warming trend is one of its effects. A better name might be “breakdown in the planet’s ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide†due to loss of plant mass and burnt release of long-dead fixed-CO2 from organic matter (i.e. coal and oil) releasing unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the air at the same time as we have DRASTICALLY reduced the number of organisms available to convert it to oxygen.
If you know about plant respiration, it’s a relatively simple “math problem.†There is ONE type of organism capable of converting the earth’s sole source of external energy — the sun — into sugars, and those are the photosynthesizing plants. These same plants breathe in carbon dioxide and take up water from the soil (CO2 and H2O) and, using the sun’s energy to power the complex chemical reaction, convert the carbon dioxide and water into sugars (C6H12O11) and Oxygen (O2). (They also respire out — and clean in the process — an awful lot of our. My front-yard hackberry probably respires about 60 gallons of water per hour in the summer, cleaning it as it draws it up from the ground and uses impurities as mineral building blocks.)
Basically all energy on earth comes from the photosynthesis reaction. Animals eat plants for the sugars. Fossil fuels are “trapped†photosynthetic sugars (and the various more complex molecules that result from those reactions, or from what other organisms do with the sugars.)
If you have a little biodome with 2 trees photosynthesizing and two animals eating exactly the amount of fruit they produce and breathing exactly the amount of oxygen they create, and you kill one of those trees, CO2 in your biodome is going to skyrocket, inadequate food production will occur, and at least one of those animals is going to die. (Or they may both die, fighting for the limited resources. Or by degrading their remaining “habitat†tree until it can no longer support even one.)
If you have a giant earth biodome and you clear 1/3 of the planet’s photosynthetic material while simultaneously releasing massive quantities of STORED plant energy (fossil fuels) back into the atmosphere, you’re not only trying to support the same size (or in humanity’s case, ever-increasing) population of animals with ever-less available “air-exchangers†and “food,†but you’re now making the deficit worse by releasing stored energy the air-exchangers have to do MORE work to exchange.
There are a handful of species that produce food without photosynthesis (like fungi), but they’re pretty calorically useless to higher animals. (Mushrooms have hardly any calories.) If you want oxygen to breathe and energy to eat, you need photosynthetic plants. It’s a simple, quantifyable chemical reaction. If you decrease the “plant†side enough, one of two things will happen — animals (and their “works†— like modern fossil fuel consumption, say) will have to decrease proportionately, or organisms that do well in excess carbon dioxide will thrive and species that require current oxygen levels will die. You know which one we are.
Earth is essentially a closed system (barring the occasional asteroid, etc.). Resources are finite. Waste products can’t be “thrown away†because they have nowhere to GO. Closed system. The only outside “power source†we have is the sun, and photosynthetic plants are the only organisms that can make use of it to create food to support the rest of us.
(If you wanna really scare the crap out of yourself about “global warming†(and why modern methods of increasing crop yields are not long-term sustainable in our closed system), go read about the nitrogen imbalance. Making greener and better and higher-yield plants won’t help the problem if it “costs†more in energy to make the plants yield more calories than you get back out of them in calories.)
And of the 4 or 5 billion years Earth’s been hanging around, primitive organisms and later plants were spending an awful lot of time creating an atmosphere we could breathe and calories we can make use of!
Earth itself will recover from our depredations just fine. Organisms will doubtless evolve that can make use of our waste products. But WE can’t survive our current depredations and I’m personally fond of me.
Feel free to comment on any aspect of global warming you wish. I have one question for Eyebrows, though. For those of you who don’t know, Eyebrows McGee (aka Laura Petelle) is a lawyer but also has a theology degree. Thus, in light of her final comment, I’d be interested in hearing how her view of humankind’s demise via global warming meshes with her eschatology.
“Thus, in light of her final comment, I’d be interested in hearing how her view of humankind’s demise via global warming meshes with her eschatology.”
I try not to think about it very hard, lol.
I actually think the most likely scenario — if scientists are right about the thermohaline catastrophe — is that humankind will a) do massive destruction to our current level of technological sophistication via massive climate change before we manage to suffocate ourselves with CO2 which will b) mean that we then lack the ability to push the climate disaster further with greenhouse gasses. In other words, I think it’s MOST likely that you’d end up with a vastly reduced humankind due to agricultural catastrophe, political upheaval, famine, probably disease (opportunistic in any catastrophe), reduced technological and manufacturing capabilities, etc. I think (based on what I’ve read) we’d have to try a lot harder than we’re trying now to entirely wipe out the species, but I think chances are excellent we could manage to destroy the earth’s ability to support more than, say, 1/3 of its current human population. What happens after that, whether the climate rebalancing can support us or not, I can’t guess. We could end up all dead, but we’re a pretty resourceful species. Then again, we’re a pretty large species, and it’s the little bitty animals that survive major world-wide catastrophes. But I vote for “survival, after massive worldwide drop in population.”
(And of course as Knight pointed out, these aren’t experiments we can really run in the laboratory — I can easily imagine the political upheaval of a thermohaline catastrophe from studies on, say, sociopolitical consequences of catastrophic hurricanes, but I have no way of imagining how MASSIVE such consequences would be, because nobody’s ever had that kind of world-wide disaster before featuring modern humans as the dominant life-form.)
That said, I think it gets really dangerous REALLY FAST to use the Bible predictively rather than presently, and current American Christian eschatology is heavily based on such misuse (and on wildly bizarre interpretations of Scripture, but that’s another issue). Does Jeremiah predict the future? I really can’t say. I am a) not God and b) not that smart and c) not that holy. (Academically, probably not. That’s not really how “prophecy” functions in the Bible.) But HOO BOY does Jeremiah say “CUT THAT CRAP OUT RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE PISSING OFF GOD AND IT’S GOING TO END BADLY!”
Christ will return like a thief in the night, and all the maneuvering in the world to create the supposed proper conditions for his return is arrogance frequently bordering on heresy. Predictions and guesses and the “armageddon watchlist” or whatever that website is called are basically exercises in unbiblical futility. I can imagine, like, sixty different scenarios of “Christ returning” that would be pretty Biblical (and some involve “not until after the cosmic passing of this material universe,” which is more or less the Catholic Church’s very tentative position) and obviously God’s imagination is vastly more infinite than mine so a very practical part of me feels it’s almost SILLY to worry about eschatology too much.
Christ kicked off the Kingdom of Heaven through his resurrection. It’s already happening. We’re living in a moment of incomplete eschatological events. Side by side, if you will, we have a Kingdom of God and a kingdom of man. One hiding within the other. So I guess you could say my eschatology isn’t about a literal “end times” but about an ongoing realization of the Kingdom of God. Eschatology isn’t the future. Eschatology is now. If you believe Christ TRULY rose from the dead and TRULY defeated sin and death, the eschaton is already underway.
I think regardless of what the “last things” turn out to be, be they metaphysical or physical or both, whether there’s a physical resurrection of the physical and perfected body or merely an immortal, immaterial soul, that’s not so much what God wants me to be worrying about.
All of which is the long way round to say that my eschatology of a human catastrophy of global warming? That we have a holy duty to try to prevent it. If I’m living as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, not just the kingdom of man, given the right of citizenship by my Baptism, if I’m striving in our imperfect fallen creation to live in that eschatologically perfect Godly world, I’m utterly bound by God’s commands to care for mankind and to care for creation. And that obviously and crucially includes not watching the better part of six billion people, every single one beloved of God, die through bad science, political inaction, or personal selfishness. (And should I not also care for Ninevah, that great city, which has 120,000 people who do not know their right hands from their left, and also many animals?) USING and ENJOYING creation I have no theological problem with, but ABUSING creation is obviously something else that’s not appropriate for an aspiring citizen of a Christian eschatological reality.
Still, eschatology’s a little beyond my intellectual gifts, so I don’t promise this is a great answer. I can only feel around the edges of what my heart knows. I’m more practical — and more limited in my abilities — so I know a lot more about textual studies and liturgy (that’s what my masters thesis is in, liturgy) than I know about these grand intellectual questions of good and evil and last things.
I don’t know how the end is going to turn out. I don’t know what’s going to happen when Christ returns Triumphant. But I’m utterly clear on the part where I’m told to love my fellow man and care for God’s creation, so I’ll stick with the parts I can manage and leave the hard theoretical parts to smarter and holier people than me.
Oh, PS, in this sentence: “They also respire out — and clean in the process — an awful lot of our. ”
There was meant to be a “water” after “our”. I think most people figured that out from the next sentence but I did typo it into insensibility.
Excellent observations as always, E.M.
One random aside I’d like to throw in regarding the scientific critics of global warming. They tend to come from the same crowd that are frequent critics of studies linking environmental tobacco smoke to adverse health outcomes (a subject much closer to me, although not nearly as important in the long run). Very often these people are good scientists, so it’s hard to dismiss them out of hand. However, they often come from fields such as physics and chemistry. They’re not climatologists or epidemiologists themselves.
Why does that make a difference? In physics and chemistry, experiments are TIGHTLY controlled. Every variable is accounted for, controlled and manipulated. That same rigor is IMPOSSIBLE in fields such as climatology and epidemiology … or even human physiology. You CANNOT control all the variables. It’s impossible. So we HAVE to deal with data that doesn’t have the same scientific rigor as physics and chemistry.
Does that mean we’re always working with best guesses? Yeah, it does – but those best guesses can be further challenged and tested, and that’s what science is all about.
The Bible (specifically the Old Testament’s books of Jewish History) is not indended to be a scientific manual, and using it as such in a scientific discussion is a misuse of the scriptures.
Thus, theories like global warming and evolution should not be played against the Bible, because in the end you will only end up with an argument for which there is no answer.
Regarding Eyebrows’ last statement, I would argue that it may very well be in God’s plan for the Earth and it’s inhabitants to be destroyed by our own actions. Only time will tell.
Actually, I just think its getting hot. We are trapping microwavable rays.
It’s a great argument to become a survivalist, dig a shelter in your basement and start a militia. *smirk*
It’s just going to take a concerted effort on the part of humanity, first world nations primarily because they have greater resources, to set a standard for how we treat our world. Right now, I think Americans do a poor job of leading the way. I like to think that with all the press that global warming has gotten, that is changing.
From a theological standpoint, I have to wonder why more Christians haven’t begun to take this seriously. I would think that the argument for being good stewards of the earth would be a pretty simple one to make, and that the destruction of entire ecosystems would fall under the category of poor stewardship even without the threat of global warming. Some of the things that prominent Christians have been in the media for lately seem insignificant in comparison.
Samantha — I believe Christians do have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. Many theologians (especially in reformed circles) refer to this as the “Creation Mandate.” Mankind is commissioned by God to care for the earth, use its resources to meet our human needs, and glorify God in the process.
Tony & Eyebrows — I agree that the Bible can be misused, and there is no shortage of examples of prophecy being misused over the years (wasn’t it Jack Van Impe who said the Lord was coming back in the year 2000?). Nevertheless, I would suggest that it does make it clear that there will be a “Day of the Lord” that is coming when he will supernaturally judge the earth.
For instance, 2 Peter 3:3-7 says, “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”
And Jesus himself said in Matthew 24:37ff, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Song of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.”
Both of these passages and others indicate that mankind will be here and going about business as usual when the Lord returns. I don’t think you can hold a literal interpretation of the Bible and simultaneously believe man will destroy himself by natural means.
Of course, if one doesn’t hold to a literal interpretation in the first place, this discussion is moot.
“I don’t think you can hold a literal interpretation of the Bible and simultaneously believe man will destroy himself by natural means. Of course, if one doesn’t hold to a literal interpretation in the first place, this discussion is moot. ”
Yes, well, and I’m Catholic. 🙂 My church generally believes strict literalism to be heretical. (We believe in four “sense” of scripture: Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical (Eschatological). The Bible is always TRUE, but not always literal.)
but also:
“Both of these passages and others indicate that mankind will be here and going about business as usual when the Lord returns.’
That’s an awfully dangerous assumption on which to base environmental or political policies. I imagine the Jews were pretty shocked when God allowed Israel to be destroyed and exiled into Babylon after being informed the were the chosen people and Israel was their birthright.
There’s actually a specific sin (f0r Catholics, anyway) called “Tempting God” where you go running around presuming you know what God will or won’t do.
I’ll stick with opting to assume I don’t know God’s mind about the Eschaton, but that I do know I should work to avoid the partial or total destruction of mankind. 🙂
sense=senses
Incidentally, CJ, I didn’t think orthodox Presbyterians could be literalists; ergo I had no idea literalism was even on the table in this discussion. In 1982, the GA of the PCUS said, “The imposition of a literalist viewpoint about the interpretation of Biblical literature–where every word is taken with a uniform literalness and becomes an absolute authority on all matters, whether moral, religious, political, historical or scientific–is in conflict with the perspective on Biblical interpretation characteristically maintained by Biblical scholars and theological schools in the mainstream of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Judaism.”
The Westminster confession also rejects literalism, although not in so many words (“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all;”)
Or the 1967 confession: “The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident
that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture.”
Do you interpret the Bible literally and, if so, how do you reconcile that with your church’s teachings rejecting literalism?
“That’s an awfully dangerous assumption on which to base environmental or political policies.”
I’m not basing environmental or political policies on my eschatological views. I’ve already established that I believe we have a God-given responsibility to care for the earth. I don’t presume to know what God will or won’t do — I simply take him at his word given what he has said in the Bible. If he says that his second coming will be as it was in the days of Noah, I don’t think it’s presumptuous to believe that his second coming will be as it was in the days of Noah. Hence, I don’t believe we will destroy ourselves before the second coming of Christ. That belief and the belief we should be good stewards of our environment are not mutually exclusive. I also believe I would survive a fall off the roof of my house, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to climb up there and jump.
I’m not part of the PCUSA. I’m part of the more conservative PCA (Presbyterian Church in America). Their website states:
When I say a “literal” interpretation, I’m simply referring to the doctrine of inerrancy. I recognize there is poetry, parables, and figurative language in the scriptures. I subscribe to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). Article 18 of that statement affirms “that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.”
Ahhhhh. I thought you were PCUSA, and the PCA’s position is much more sensical (is that a word?) than some of the folks I went to seminary with, who bizarrely held that parables were to be interpreted metaphorically but everything else was utterly literal up to and including the wrong value for pi (I have a great story about a guy building a circular treehouse with wrong-pi, complete with circular logic) and nobody in the Bible but Jesus was capable of using metaphor.
Under the Chicago statement I too would fall under “literal” but I don’t really consider that “literalism” in a meaningful sense of the word. Inerrancy is probably a better word. (I also think literalism and sometimes even inerrancy can wander down the primrose path into idolatry — obviously God remains more authoritative than the Bible, and some folks seem to flip that backwards.)
“I’m not basing environmental or political policies on my eschatological views.”
And I know YOU don’t, but an AWFUL lot of people do, and it makes me angry, both because they’re abusing God’s creation and because I think they’re abusing the Bible.
“Global Warming is a myth perpetuated by academics seeking grants to study it.”
From the “Bees on the Bridge” blog.