Sunday, January 16, 2011

Race, slavery and the Bible

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Georgia was at the center of America’s racial struggle, for good and bad.  From its colonial days, Georgia was a slave-owning colony and then state.  It stood in the heart of the Confederacy and, even after the abolition of slavery blacks were treated as less than equal.  A few miles from where I grew up and less than ten years before I was born, Lt. Col. Lemuel Penn, a black US Army veteran of WWII, was murdered by Klansmen in 1964.  Martin Luther King, Jr., an Atlanta native and pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, became the face of the civil rights movement.  King represented a full circle between past attempts to use the Bible to justify racial discrimination.  King, and other Christians like him, was instrumental in banning slavery and segregation in the US.

Over the years, religion has been used to justify slavery and segregation as well as racial reconciliation.  Pastors and congregations have used Bible verses to support arguments on both sides of the racial and political spectrums.  What does the Bible really tell us?

Slavery has probably existed almost as long as human societies have.  The earliest mention of slavery in the Bible is in Genesis 9:25 in which Noah curses Canaan, the son of Ham and grandson of Noah, to live in slavery because Ham ridiculed Noah while he was drunk in the days after the Great Flood.  By the end of Genesis, the entire Hebrew clan was enslaved in Egypt.  The Bible repeatedly reminds the Jews that they were rescued from slavery by God (Exodus 2:23, 6:6, 20:2, Leviticus 26:13, Deuteronomy 5:6, 5:15, 16:12).

Slavery was not condemned by the Bible, but, beginning with Moses, God set down rules for the treatment of slaves.  An early rule regarding slaves is found in Exodus 20:21 which stipulates that a slave owner must be punished if a slave dies after being beaten.  Beating slaves was not forbidden in itself.

Slavery as we know it, based on race, was forbidden.  Slaves were typically taken as captives in wars, or in some cases sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts or provide for themselves.  The Bible did forbid the type of slavery in which slavers raided African villages and sold the inhabitants into slavery.  In Exodus 21:16, God, through Moses, forbade the kidnapping of people to sell into slavery. 

The law books of the Bible also address the treatment of slaves.  Leviticus 19:20 regulates sexual relations with slaves.  Leviticus 22:11 concerns the possession of slaves by priests.  Leviticus 25:42-44 forbids the sale of fellow Hebrews as slaves and stipulates that Jews had to buy slaves from the surrounding gentile nations.  In Deuteronomy 15:12-15, the Bible specifies that if a Jew sells himself into slavery, he must be offered freedom after six years.  If he elects to go free, the owner had to supply him with food and livestock.

The New Testament also addresses slavery.  The book of Philemon is a letter from Paul to the owner of an escaped slave, Onesimus.  Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, asking that he be treated not as a slave, but as a brother (v. 16).  Similarly, in Ephesians 6:9, Paul instructed slave owners not to threaten or harm their slaves, since both slave and master had the same Master in Heaven.  A similar statement in Colossians 4:1, instructs slave owners to give to their slaves what is “right and fair.” 

Paul did provide a condemnation of the slave trade, if not slavery itself.  In 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul listed slave traders in a list of sinners and lawbreakers, along with murders, adulterers, perverts, liars, and perjurers. 

To this point, the Bible has condemned the slave trade and instructed slave owners to treat their slaves humanely and fairly.  Paul went a step further, however.  In several passages, Paul implicitly states that slaves and owners, as well as Jews and gentiles, are equal in the eyes of God.  1 Corinthians 12:13 says that both slaves and freemen have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Deuteronomy 32:36, Revelation 13:16, and Revelation 19:18 all point to the fact that God judges free and slave equally.

In case there is any doubt, Paul goes even further.  He states what for his time must have been a radical thought.  In both Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11, Paul states explicitly that there is no slave or free.  Paul also points out that Jews and Greeks are equal as well, a notion that the leaders of God’s Chosen People would not have liked.  In God’s eyes, all people are equal.  None are superior and none are inferior.  In God’s eyes all people are sinners and are in need of the freedom from sin that Jesus offers (2 Peter 2:19).

These statements provide the basis for the eventual abolition of slavery.  Even though some nominal Christians taught that blacks were inferior descendents of Ham, there is no basis for this.  To the contrary, a close reading of the Bible shows just the opposite: that people should be treated as equal, regardless of race, creed, color, or nationality.

It would take hundreds of years, but Paul’s words would finally give birth to movement for the abolition of slavery.  The abolition movement began in colonial America.  The first resisters to slavery were members of the Society of Friends, a Christian sect also known as Quakers.  After the American Revolution, many free whites began to equate the plight of slaves with that of the former colonists. 

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 set the stage for the eventual abolition of slavery.  The constitution gave the federal government the power to ban the importation of slaves in 1808, which it did.  The 3/5 compromise, contrary to claims that it valued slaves and only 3/5 of a person, limited the political power of the slave states.  The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 also made slavery illegal in the Northwest Territory.  During this period, Northern states began to enact state laws banning slavery.

Probably no man was as instrumental in the abolition of western slavery as William Wilberforce.  Wilberforce was a Christian and a prominent member of the British parliament who, influenced by slave trader turned evangelist John Newton, began a campaign to end the slave trade in 1798.  The campaign resulted in the end of the British slave trade in 1807 and the end of all slavery in England in 1833. 

American abolitionists too, were often inspired by their religious beliefs.  Frederick Douglass, a former slave, framed his arguments against slavery in religious terms, pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians owning slaves.  Sojourner Truth, a former slave born in New York, used the Bible to effectively argue for both women’s rights and the abolition of slavery.  Many other abolitionists opposed slavery on moral grounds derived from a Christian worldview.  Many put their beliefs into practice as conductors or station keepers on the Underground RailroadHarriet Tubman, “the Black Moses,” was one of the Underground Railroad’s most famous conductors, as well as a spy for the Union Army.

John Brown's execution day
One of the most infamous Christian abolitionists of the nineteenth century was John Brown.  Brown worked on the Underground Railroad in Pennsylvania before moving his family to Kansas, where he became known for his savage attacks on pro-slavery settlers.  Brown eventually was captured by US Marines under the command of Robert E. Lee and sentenced to hang.  Brown was executed on December 2, 1859.  His last words, in a note given to his jailer, foretold the wrath of God that was soon to be visited upon the United States for the evil of slavery:

I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that, without very much bloodshed, it might be done.

Elected on the heels of John Brown’s hanging, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, also framed his opposition to slavery in moralistic terms:  “Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil...” The Republican Party was created in 1854 specifically to oppose slavery

There is dispute over Lincoln’s religious beliefs.  Many believe that he was not a Christian because he never joined a church.  Nevertheless, he did often attend church and read the Bible regularly.  In his speeches and letters, he quoted from the Bible regularly and is said to have had large portions of it committed to memory.  He also grew up in a Baptist family.  Lincoln himself said, “That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular.”  Whatever his personal spiritual beliefs, Lincoln’s Christian background likely shaped his beliefs on the immorality of slavery.

Further, the Battle Hymn of the Republic was one of the most popular songs of the Civil War.  It became a popular marching song of the Union army.  Its lyrics, together with the tune of another popular song about John Brown, are unmistakably Biblical.  The words invoke the sacrifice of Christ as an inspiration for the Union struggle to abolish slavery.

After the abolition of slavery, the struggle started anew to gain full legal equality for all Americans regardless of race.  In the years after the Civil War, a system of “separate-but-equal” was established and black suffrage was discouraged in many areas.  Again, activists steeped in a Christian worldview led the movement for equality and civil rights.  As with slavery, however, people also used the Bible, mostly out of context, to support segregation as well.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was the symbol of the civil rights movement. King, his father and his grandfather were all Baptist preachers.  The Bible taught King that blacks were equal to whites and his faith in God gave him the strength to stand strong.  Alluding to Moses, King said, “I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land.” 

Another famous figure of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, was also a committed Christian.  Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to move to the back of the bus, but the quiet dignity that her faith instilled made her a sympathetic face for the Montgomery bus boycott and the civil rights movement as a whole.

Jackie Robinson
Jackie Robinson, the first black player in Major League Baseball, was also a Christian.  Robinson was given his chance by Brooklyn Dodgers general manager, Branch Rickey, also a Christian.  Many other rank-and-file Christians pushed for equality on the basis that no race was superior since all races were created by God and descended from Adam.

In other countries, a Christian worldview has also helped to bring about equality and freedom.  After years of apartheid, South Africa is now integrated.  In the aftermath of apartheid, many wanted to try the former leaders of the country for human rights abuses.  Instead, South Africa established a Truth and Reconciliation Committee that walks the line between mercy and justice.  Bishop Desmond Tutu was instrumental in establishing the process that is helping black and white South Africans to reconcile and face the future in peace.

It might have taken thousands of years, but we are as close to the full equality of the races, what was most likely God’s original intent, in modern America as anywhere in history.  There will always be racist fringe groups, but in modern America they are ostracized and not part of mainstream society.  We are very near to Martin Luther King’s colorblind society, but the next step is a difficult one to take.

The next step on the road to equality is to attack what President George W. Bush called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  Preferential treatment for any race needs to be phased out.  Programs such as these had their place in the days of integration, but our society is fully integrated now.  People of all races have equal opportunity, as evidenced by the election of President Barack Obama, and there are laws to prevent discrimination (with the exception of discriminatory government programs and laws). 

To believe that any one race needs special government help to succeed is an inherently racist notion.  It is time to remove race-based programs.  If the government feels that it is necessary to provide entitlement programs (which it increasingly cannot afford to do anyway), then they should be administered on the basis of need, rather than race.

According to Joel Kotkin in his book The Next Hundred Million:  America in 2050, the population of the United States will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming decades.  Many new Americans will be immigrants and many will be born here.  True to the tradition of the American melting pot, they will come in a variety of races, creeds, and colors.  It is in our best interest to welcome them into our society and to help them assimilate. 

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1722
As different races assimilate into our society, there will more intermarriage.  The races will blend.  This is a good thing.  I look forward to a day when the color of someone’s skin makes no more difference than the color of their hair or eyes.  When my children grow up, I will be far more concerned with the character and culture of their spouses than the color of their skin. 

If this was God’s intent from the beginning, then why does the Bible not prohibit slavery?  Why didn’t Moses tell the Jews in the wilderness that since they had known the evils of slavery in Egypt they were now forbidden from owning slaves themselves?

I believe that the answer can be found in Matthew 19:8.  In this passage, Jesus is asked about divorce by a group of Pharisees.  Jesus answered, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”  Similarly, I believe that if we could talk to Jesus face-to-face and ask him why God did not prohibit slavery, He would say, “Moses permitted slavery because your hearts were hard.  But it was not this way from the beginning.”

The races may coexist peacefully and equally in the modern United States, but this is not the case for all parts of the world.  Harassment, persecution, and even genocide of people who look, speak, or think differently still happens all too often.  Likewise, slavery still exists in many parts of the world.   We should use our national influence to encourage equality and reconciliation around the world, while fighting to end slavery everywhere.


(This article originally published Feb. 24, 2010.  It has been one of my most popular posts.)

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Bipartisan group in Congress wants more gun control after Tucson




Not a victim (USMC)
“David’s Law” states that any prominent violent crime will be followed by an attempt to pass more gun control laws.  This is true even if the crime does not involve a gun.  True to form, it took only a few days after Jared Lee Loughner killed six and wounded thirteen people, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Judge John Roll, for a bipartisan group of congressmen to issue proposals for new gun control measures.  In the two years of the Obama presidency, gun control measures have been surprisingly absent as the Democratic majority focused on expanding government control over the economy and increasing discretionary spending, however my February 2009 prediction that the Obama Administration would usher in new restrictions on guns and ammunition may finally be put to the test.

The new proposals come from three New Yorkers in Congress. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) was first with a proposal to ban “large capacity” magazines that can hold more than ten rounds.   Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has said that he will pursue similar legislation in the Senate.  Rep. Peter King, a Republican, wants to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of high ranking government officials.  Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) is proposing legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole,” which is actually a myth.  None of these proposals would have stopped the Tucson shooting.

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, famously claimed that a crisis should never go to waste.  He reportedly disavowed that comment with respect to incidents like the Tucson shooting, saying “First of all, what I said was: Never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it's an opportunity to do things that you had never considered or that you didn't think were possible. That's not intended for this moment, or [sic] does it apply to this moment."  However, other gun control advocates may not agree.

Gun control activists have lost several court battles in recent years.  In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller Decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a governmental right to form a militia as long claimed by leftists.  In 2010, the Court confirmed in McDonald v. Chicago that the second amendment protections limit the ability of state governments to enact gun control laws as well.  Some gun control activists are obviously hoping to use the tragedy in Tucson to reverse the tide of second amendment freedom.

Glock 19 (Vladimir Dudak)
In fact, the tide of public opinion has shifted in favor of second amendment freedoms in most parts of the country.  Historic Gallup polls show the trend of fewer Americans favoring stricter gun control laws.  The same poll shows Americans overwhelmingly opposed to handgun bans.  In recent years the numbers have been trending in a pro-second amendment direction.

Ironically, one of the first people on the scene of the Tucson shooting was a private citizen armed with a legal handgun.  While he did not have to use his gun against Loughner, he did participate in detaining him for police.  Being able to defend himself may have been the difference between running to help stop a madman and running for cover.

This story underscores a basic truth of life.  Each person is ultimately responsible for their own safety.  Police cannot be everywhere at once.  Criminals will choose to strike at a time and place when police are not present.  You can choose to minimize your risk by avoiding certain behaviors, such as not walking alone in high crime areas at night, but you can never know when a deranged person, like Jared Lee Loughner, or even a committed terrorist like Nidal Malik Hasan, is going to open fire in a grocery store, shopping mall, movie theater, or elsewhere.  The right to keep and bear arms is a vital part of public safety. 

Even if you choose not to exercise your right to carry a weapon, you can be safer when law-abiding gun owners deter crime.  The reason is simple:  If a criminal believes a victim may be carrying a gun, they will be less likely to attack.  If a criminal sees a gun in his intended victim’s hands, he is likely to break off the attack.  The statistics bear out the fact that as gun ownership and concealed carry permits increase, murder and crime rates fall.

Some believe that having law abiding citizens carry guns make the streets more dangerous.  Statistics would suggest otherwise.  Very few holders of concealed carry permits, which require background checks in most states, commit crimes.  Additionally, everyone who buys a gun from a licensed dealer must submit to an instant background check.

The one thing that might have stopped Jared Loughner’s rampage was to have him committed.  Both federal and Arizona state law prohibit the mentally ill from buying a gun.  However, even the mentally ill are entitled to due process before their rights are taken away.  Under our Constitution, this is as it should be.  Given Loughner’s record of arrests and his suspension from college on mental health grounds, perhaps local officials should have tried to have him committed or determined to be dangerous by a court.

The newly divided Congress will make it even more difficult for gun control advocates to pass more restrictive gun laws.  Even though Republicans now control the House of Representatives by a wide margin, most Democrats now steer clear of gun control as well.  It is not uncommon for the National Rifle Association to endorse solidly pro-second amendment Democrats over untested Republicans.

The original intent of the second amendment was not to hunt.  As John Adams said, “arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the nation, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”  After the shooting in Tucson, gun sales in Arizona increased 60%.  The new gun owners there were not afraid of Jared Lee Loughner.



Friday, January 14, 2011

Global warming and the blizzard of '11

Kids in Georgia got almost a week of sledding early in the year.

As Georgia digs itself out of a record-breaking winter storm that followed its first white Christmas in more than a century, people are starting to ask, “What happened to global warming?”  After a series of mild winters, Georgia is experiencing its second harsh winter in a row.  In the winter of 2009-2010, Atlanta received more than its average annual snowfall in one storm on February 12.  Ironically, this was my son’s birthday and his party at Chuck E. Cheese was almost snowed out!  There were several other snowstorms in addition to that one. 

The trend seems to be one of bigger snowstorms in Georgia that occur earlier in the season than in the past.  The trend seems to be one of harsher winters in many countries around the world, not just the United States. Records for cold weather are being set across the United States and around the world this winter.

As global warmists are fond of pointing out when cold weather strikes, local weather conditions do not necessarily disprove a global trend.  Unfortunately, many of these same people are quick to point to local heat waves, droughts, and hurricanes as proof of global warming in other parts of the year. 

As countries around the world experience record cold weather, as well as record hot weather, the term “global warming” has slipped out of favor.  Instead, it has been replaced with the generic term “global climate change.”  It is difficult to argue against global climate change because the global climate is definitely changing.  It always has been and always will be.

When considering the possibility of global warming, we should ask ourselves a series of questions.  First, is global warming actually occurring?  If so, is it a natural phenomenon or is it caused by man?  Whether is caused by man or not, is it a bad thing?  Finally, if it is bad and if it is caused by man, is it possible to reverse it?  If so, is it worth the cost?

Al Gore (Steve Jurvetson)
As far back as 2005, global warmists such as Al Gore claimed that there was a consensus that global warming was occurring, was caused by man, and would be catastrophic if not stopped.  More recently, this claim has been shattered, first as more and more scientists began to dissent from the prevailing viewpoint on global warming, then as hacked emails from prominent climate scientists revealed a pattern of deception.  Global warming believers had faked much of the data that proved warming was occurring, covered up data that did not match their conclusions, and tried to discredit scientists who were skeptical of their claims.

The warmist claim that recent years are the hottest on record was shattered several years ago when it was learned that NASA’s algorithms for graphing temperatures suffered from a Y2K bug.  Previously, 1998 was believed to be the warmest year on record for the US.  With the new data, 1934 became the warmest year.  As of 2007, five of the warmest ten years on record for the US were prior to World War II. 

Further, more doubt was cast on the data itself by the website surfacestations.org, which is conducting a survey of automated weather stations in the US.  Many were revealed to be improperly placed in a manner that could make their readings seem warmer than actual.  For example, some stations are located adjacent to asphalt parking lots or near the exhaust of air conditioning units.  If these types of errors are found in the United States, it is likely that they are also present in other countries, especially in the third world.

NASA image of solar flare striking Earth
If it cannot be conclusively determined that the earth is warming, it also cannot be said that it is beyond a doubt that warming is anthropogenic, or caused by man.  Another likely explanation is that global warming is caused by solar activity.  The sun is on an eleven year cycle that peaked in 2000 and reached a second peak in 2002.  Solar max is known to cause short-term climate change in the form of higher temperatures, increased clouds, and El Nino-like storms.  We are currently experiencing a very deep solar minimum, the deepest in over a century.  Solar activity has been at very low levels since 2008, which coincides with the onset of the harsh winters.  Historical data on cosmic rays shows an almost perfect correlation with temperature over a period of three thousand years.

On the other hand, the relationship of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with temperature is less certain.  Far from carbon leading historical changes in temperature, carbon dioxide levels actually follow changes in temperature.  According to historical data, carbon dioxide levels lag behind changes in temperature by about 1200 years.  On the other hand, scientists do seem to agree that carbon dioxide can act to amplify temperature changes that are caused by other variables. 

Further, increased volcanic activity may be contributing to the cold weather.  Volcanic activity has been known to affect weather since 1816 when an eruption on the Indonesian island of Tambora, coupled with a solar minimum, caused record cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere.  The year became known as “eighteen hundred and froze to death” and the “year without a summer.”  Failing crops led to food shortages in many parts of the world.  The dismal weather sparked emigration from New England to the American West and inspired Mary Shelley to write “Frankenstein.”

Recent years have seen an upsurge in volcanic activity in some areas as well.  Undersea eruptions were revealed to be the likely cause of melting glaciers.  Last year, an Icelandic eruption shut down air travel across the Atlantic and Europe, stranding thousands.  In recent years, volcanic activity in Iceland has increased 30-fold.  As demonstrated by Tambora, it would not take a worldwide increase in volcanic activity to affect weather patterns around the globe.

2010 eruption of Icelandic volcano (Max Haase)
Additionally, yet another reason for warmer global temperatures may be that the world is still recovering from the Little Ice Age.  From 1250 to 1850, glaciers advanced and cold, wet weather led to diseases and crop failures.  As recently as 1862, during the Battle of Fredericksburg, the aurora borealis (Northern Lights) appeared in the skies of Virginia.

The link between warming and man is also tenuous.  For one thing, global warming has been reported beyond Earth’s globe.  The planets Mars, Neptune, Jupiter and Pluto have all been reported to have increasing global temperatures.  If global warming is a problem throughout the solar system, it would point toward a cause that is beyond Earth as well.  After all, there is little or no human industry on other planets.

The problems with global warming theory affect other areas of policy as well.  In 2008, polar bears were added to the endangered species list as a “threatened” species after a long campaign by global warming activists who were concerned that rising temperatures and melting seas could threaten the bear’s survival.  The listing led to a suit by the State of Alaska and countersuits by environmental groups.  The problem is that the polar bear population is actually increasing, something that is rare for a truly endangered species.  In some areas of the arctic, the number of bears is becoming so great that they constitute a safety issue for local villagers.

Are people a danger to polar bears or is it the other way around?
Contrary to what some warmists have claimed, current weather is not the warmest in history.  Climate during the early Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 3 million years ago) and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) (950-1100 AD) was much warmer than today.  Both periods occurred long before modern industry and manmade greenhouse gases.  In fact, the MWP coincides with the Medieval Maximum, a period of increased solar activity.

The MWP was warm enough to allow Vikings to colonize parts of Greenland and Newfoundland.  These colonies lasted until after the onset of the Little Ice Age.  Evidence of a warmer climate during the MWP is found around the world.

We can also examine the MWP to help determine whether global warming is actually a bad thing.  For example, agriculture flourished during the MWP when the “the climate was warm and dry, with high tree lines, glacier retreat, and reduced lake catchment erosion” compared to the numerous crop failures and famines of the Little Ice Age and 1816.  Further, the cold weather of these periods also caused the spread of disease, such as the Bubonic Plague (the Black Death), which killed a third of Europe.  Even today, cold weather is a bigger killer than hot weather.

Granted, a warmer climate would not be a boon to all areas of the earth.  Areas that are already warm might become too arid.  Sea levels would rise if glaciers melt, but even alarmists only predict rises of a few feet.  It is likely that much more land would be gained from the retreat of the ice, than would be lost.  Few global warmists were worried enough about the rising seas to oppose the rehabilitation of New Orleans, a city already below sea level.

The final question is whether global warming can be stopped by man and at what cost.  Environmentalist and global warming believer Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, argues that proposed solutions for global warming will cost billions of dollars and only change projected warming by fractions of a degree. Lomborg argues that the money would be better spent on reducing third world poverty and fighting disease.  Humans are masters of adaptation and future generations, with the benefit of advanced technology, would be better able to deal with global warming.

The problem is compounded by the fact that developing nations do not want to be handicapped in their quest for a better standard of living by artificial limits on carbon production.  Large carbon producers such as China and Russia show little interest in cutting production of carbon.  If the United States were to enact cap-and-trade or some other type of carbon limits, we would effectively hamstring our economy. 

The best argument against global warming theory is the way the warmists have attempted to stifle the debate.  It has been years since Al Gore said, “There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this,” yet the debate is stronger than ever.  Scientists who are skeptical of global warming theory are painted as members of “a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters” and oil companies, allegedly destroying the world to preserve their profits.  As we have already seen, climate scientists dedicated to the theory of global warming have conspired to suppress data that contradicts their beliefs and fought to prevent papers skeptical of global warming from being published.  Global warming skeptics have been compared to Holocaust deniers and criminals.  A recent promotional video seemed to advocate summarily killing skeptics. 

Predictions of global warming are often based on sophisticated computer models.  To accurately model the earth’s climate and weather, they must take a large number of variables into account.  If these variables are omitted or applied incorrectly, the results will be useless.  To put it simply, it is a case of “garbage in – garbage out.”  In the past, the results of this modeling has been less than stellar, though models are improving.  The failure of climate science to predict the recent and current harsh winters underscores the difficulty of modeling climate.

If the science of global warming were truly as solid as its proponents would have you believe, there would be no need for these kinds of heavy-handed tactics.  If the global warming believers truly want to advance the cause of science, they should tone down their rhetoric and allow an open debate on the subject.  They might also want to find a better explanation for the harsh winter weather.


Please click the SUBSCRIBE button at the top of this page to receive future updates.

Polar bear photo credit:
naturespicsonline.com Alan D. Wilson