Daily Archives: November 28, 2006

Blind Faith

“Behind every question of faith or practice is a presupposition – a premise. If you start with an incorrect premise, you may end up with a logically sound argument, but you will have a conclusion that simply isn’t true.” – Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission


Making decisions based on a certain set of presumptions is common even in science. Some people think that all science is exact. But science revolves around theories. These assumptions are either proven to be true or false. And there are many instances where we can’t really prove theories either way due to human limitations in time and space. And in those cases, we have to make the best scientific guess possible. Much of established science today is still at the theory stage. This includes sacred cows, such as evolution and global warming.

I am thinking about global warming due to former vice president Al Gore’s movie called An Inconvenient Truth. This movie and most journalists present global warming as a proven ecological crisis. And while many respected scientists point to global warming as a pending ecological nightmare. There are others that doubt if the situation is as bad as many “experts” make it out to be.

I am not sure what to really think about global warming. I am all for being responsible with the planet. But I don’t want to sign on with the preservationist agenda because I have seen them be wrong many times in the past. The way that many journalists act as if there is not a legitimate scientific debate on the real danger linked to the issue seems dishonest and wreckless.

Consider what Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and respected ecologist, said when I asked him about global warming.

What is your view on the science behind global warming? Is it really as big of a problem as many experts make it out to be?

Moore: The people who are saying there is no longer any need for debate are the ones who would stifle debate. They think they’re right. The fact is that there is huge discussion about global warming. There are a lot of climatologists who do not accept that humans are the definite cause of the climate change. Most of them admit that humans could be part of it or maybe some or most of it, but we don’t know that. Then there are the people who say there is a consensus among scientists that we know for sure that humans are causing this climate change and we know for sure that it will be bad.

    Those are the two different questions of course; whether or not we are causing it on the one hand and on the other hand whether or not it will be all bad. I personally believe that we don’t know if we are causing it all. But even if we assume that we are causing it, some positive impacts will result. As usual, when there’s change there are going to be winners and losers. If you focus on the losers, like a lot of people seem to be doing, then certain island states will have the water level rise, and there may be drought in other places. But there may also be deserts blooming somewhere. There may be increased fishery productivity and a whole bunch of positive things, such as, longer growing seasons, shorter winters, reduced energy requirements, and forests growing in areas that are now just tundra.

    There are all kinds of possibly positive impacts from climate change. The activist groups and a lot of political people seem to think there’s an advantage for them to be accentuating the negatives, the climate catastrophes and the climate apocalypses. They talk about global warming plunging Europe into the dark ages when, in fact, we’re in a cold period right now compared to most of the earth’s history. During much of the earth’s history there was no ice at either pole. Then there was a time hundreds of millions of years ago when it froze nearly to the equator due to a real cold period. And for the last two million years we’ve been in the Pleistocene period, otherwise known as the “Ice Age.”