Global Warming: A First Look

This week I read a Facebook post headlined, "Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is a Big Scam." The post consisted of a letter of resignation from the American Physical Society by Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

This post doesn't qualify as "fake news," but it certainly falls short of being the whole truth. Here are some reasons why:

1. This post is not "news" because the letter was written more than six years ago and the original post came from September 29,2015. Maybe this simply shows that nothing ever really dies on Facebook.

2. Hal Lewis 87 years old when he wrote his letter, and could only be described as a "top scientist" within his specialty, the field of nuclear reactor safety, in an earlier era. He had no special training in climate science. The American Physical Society from which he resigned is only tangentially related to climate research.

3. In 1990, Hal Lewis wrote Technological Risk in which he affirmed global warming by saying, "all models agree that the net effect of increasing greenhouse gases will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business. Reducing the effects, including significant sea level rise, would require global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far in the future, and a conjectural something at that. There is no evidence in human history that is in the cards, but one can always hope."

4. The main critique in his letter of resignation is that science has been corrupted by the "trillions of dollars" driving the "global warming scam." This is a bizarre accusation akin to seeing The Sierra Club as the giant, Goliath, and Exxon as diminutive David. Following the money in the global warming debate leads you to the climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry, not to climate science researchers.

6. The only evidence to support his claim of global warming as a scam is the work of Andrew Montford, whose book, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climate Gate and the Corruption of Science, was described by critics as a favorite of the oil industry and the tabloids, but of little interest to climate scientists because of its inherent flaws.

The Problem of True Believers

A True Believer is someone who believes something to be true in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

True Believers embrace all evidence supporting their beliefs while ignoring all evidence inconsistent with their beliefs, branding them as lies or at least misinformation.

True Believers enjoy debating, discussing and arguing because it gives them a chance to present all their arguments in support of their beliefs. They never listen to those with whom they are arguing, however, both because they think they have nothing to learn from those who are wrong, and because they are afraid they may be misled by those who are evil.

True Believers are increasingly a problem in today's world. Extremists on both the left and right dominate political discussions today, rendering powerless those moderates who seek unity and common ground. 

Some would argue that those who believe in God, Jesus and the Bible are True Believers in this sense; indeed, some are, but not all. Many with strong beliefs are nonetheless open to change their mind when presented with new ideas and evidence because they are committed to learn and grow. Like the Apostle Paul, they believe in this life we “see through a glass darkly,” and will only see clearly in the life to come.

It isn’t a simple matter for True Believers to change their minds, but nothing is impossible with God. Here are some things to keep in mind when dealing with True Believers among your friends and within your family:

Be humble and gentle. People never change their mind because someone overpowers them, yelling louder than they do. Arguments which turn into shouting matches accomplish little other than straining relationships by making each side more defensive and more determined to win (or at least not to lose).

Be patient and persistent. Those whose beliefs are well-defended are often terrified by what might happen if they begin to think differently. It can take months or even years for people to find the courage to accept the validity of new ideas and evidence.

Be prayerful. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Throughout history God has changed the hearts and minds of people, even those who have strongly resisted. Trust God to be at work in the lives of others and make sure you are open to God’s leading in your own life.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I set out to verify whether or not access to birth control reduces abortions because I suspected some people were being less than truthful in the claims they were making. The conclusion I've reached is that it all depends on how you define your terms. 

There is a difference, for instance, between birth control and effective birth control. Condoms are the least expensive and most widely available form of birth control. When used consistently and properly, they have a failure rate of about 2% in the course of a year for sexually active women. In real life situations, however, the failure rate is about 18% because of improper or inconsistent use. This means women who rely solely on condoms to prevent pregnancy are more likely than not to become pregnant over a three year period of sexually activity.

A few studies have even shown an increase in unplanned pregnancies and abortions for those who rely on ineffective means of birth control. This happens because sexual activity increases when people have a false sense of security about not becoming pregnant.

There are numerous studies showing what common sense tells us: access to effective means of birth control reduces abortions. Such a conclusion is not widely accepted, however, because many consider these effective means of birth control simply to be another form of abortion.

Everything hinges on the definition of when life begins. There are at least four possibilities:

1. Life begins as a newborn takes its first breath. This hearkens back to God breathing life into Adam, and is consistent with childbirth practices prior to the advent of modern medicine. 
2. Life begins at fetal viability. The conclusion of Roe v. Wade was that a woman had a "right of privacy" to end a pregnancy until fetal viability was reached, the point when a child could survive outside the womb. This was understood to come about the sixth month. 
3. Life begins at implantation. Only when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall does it have the possibility of becoming a person. 
4. Life begins at fertilization. Even before a fertilized egg is implanted, cellular development has started and life has thus begun.

The distinction between #3 and #4 is critical: if life begins at the point of fertilization, any birth control method which interferes with implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall is a form of abortion. Birth control pills, for instance, are primarily intended to prevent ovulation. However, they also lessen the chance of fertilization, and increase uterine resistance to accepting a fertilized egg. If life begins at fertilization, birth control pills are, at least in some cases, a form of abortion. 

Norplant and IUDs, frequently touted as some of the most effective forms of birth control, are specifically designed to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall.  

Given these irreconcilable understandings and definitions, it isn't surprising there is so little constructive dialogue between those who are pro-choice and pro-life.

My Commitment to Our New President

About 2,600 years ago, the surviving inhabitants of Jerusalem were forcibly removed to Babylon by their conquerors. The walls of Jerusalem were broken down and the Temple totally destroyed. The Jews were thus in exile from the Promised Land, with no king to lead them and no Temple in which to worship. All they had left was their religious heritage and their sacred writings.

In the most dire circumstances, the prophet Jeremiah brought them a startling message from God:

“Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:7, NIV)

This ancient message speaks to us still, as many in America are also experiencing a sense of exile. For some, the sense of losing their homeland came during the presidency of Barack Obama; for others, it has come through the election of Donald Trump. Our country is terribly divided: partisanship abounds; unity is nowhere to be found.

I believe the time has come to embrace the words of Jeremiah. To that end, I invite others to join me in making these commitments:

I will pray for the success of President Trump and will celebrate his victories.

The president has promised to create countless new jobs and bring about a revival in American manufacturing. He has promised to renew our inner cities, making them safer than they have ever been, with increased access to quality education for all. He has promised to secure our borders from those who would come to wreak havoc among us. He has promised to replace Obamacare with something better, eliminating mandates while lowering premiums and reducing deductibles. He has promised to make our country more secure in order for us to live without fear. He has promised a society free from discrimination with increased opportunities for women and minorities to thrive. In all these things I will pray for his success and celebrate his victories.

I will lament the failures of President Trump and will pray for his victims.

It is impossible for me to imagine anyone being able to fulfill all the promises our new president has made. Everyone fails from time to time, sometimes due to poor decisions being made and at other times because of events beyond our control. Even the most altruistic plans often have unintended consequences. President Trump will have his failures and I will lament them, not gloat over them.

I will also pray for the innocent victims of President Trump’s failures. There will be immigrants denied the opportunity to seek peace and prosperity in this country through no fault of their own. There will be refugees turned away, not because of the threat they pose, but because of the fear we cannot overcome. There will be people discriminated against and brutalized because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. There will be people who sink deeper into poverty because they lack access to education or healthcare. There will be many other innocent victims, and I will not only pray for them, but will join with others in doing what can be done to alleviate their suffering.

I will be persistent in seeking the truth as objectively as possible about President Trump’s successes and failures, his victories and victims.

In this era of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” I will not accept that we live in a “post-truth” era. I will do all I can to seek the truth from credible sources, choosing to consider both sides in every disagreement, never allowing one side to tell me what the other side thinks and why they are wrong. I will be informed, not gullible.

How Do We Know?

I don't want Speak Truth Show Grace to become another political rant, but I'm hoping a deeper grasp  of truth could lead to a more constructive political dialogue. 

I saw a post on Facebook and am passing it along for your reaction. I'm not asking whether you think the eight points below are good or bad, right or wrong. I have only one question for the purpose of our blog: ARE THEY TRUE? Perhaps more to the point of this blog, are they the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I don't think these eight statements lend themselves to comments like, "They are true for me, but not for you," or "These are my truth, but they may not be your truth." These are factual statements: they are either true or false, or perhaps partially true and partially false.

This brings up another question: Can we actually KNOW whether or not these statements are true? It would probably be more true to say, "I believe these statements are true" or "I believe these statements are not true." If that is the case, and our view of these statements is a belief or an opinion, on what evidence is our belief or opinion based?

The politics of these statements will likely be the subject of many rants and arguments; I hope we can focus instead on the process of how we come to truth. 

Here are the eight statements, copied and posted by a friend of mine with no attribution to any media source:

Last week's federal government in review: 

1. Trump fires all Obama-appointed Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day. 

2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State. 

3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest. 

4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA. 

5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election. 

6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it. 

7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US. 

8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it 

We - progressive, liberal, libertarian, and conservative - need to all wake up to what is actually happening to our beloved country.

I look forward to your comments. 

Discovering Truth

Truth exists because reality exists.

Consider a person who drives to town, goes into a coffee shop and says to his friends, “That’s quite a pothole north of town. I barely saw it, but I sure felt it!”

One of his friends replies, “I just came to town that same way. I didn’t see any pothole and I sure didn’t hit one. It was a smooth ride all the way for me.”

Did the pothole exist for one person and not for the other?

It’s hard to imagine anyone who would argue such a thing. More likely, there would be a discussion of whether one person imagined a pothole or the other person simply failed to see or hit it because of being on a slightly different track.

The more practical question is the extent to which we can actually know the truth, or to ask it somewhat differently, is our understanding of the truth true?

We process reality through our senses: sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing. If we had none of these senses, we would be absolutely cut off from the world around us, unaware of even our own existence. As long as we have at least one of them, however, and a functioning brain, we can process reality through the filter of our experience.

Our capacity to know the truth is shaped by our willingness to engage in critical thinking and by the way in which our experience has conditioned us.

In the same way, our capacity to be deceived is shaped by our unwillingness to engage in critical thinking and by the way in which our experience has conditioned us.

Discovering the truth about a pothole is relatively simple: we can go and see for ourselves, trusting our sense of sight and touch to confirm whether or not it is there. If you live in Michigan, you have lots of experience to guide you in this!

Discovering other truth is more complex. For instance, has Obamacare been a success or a disaster? Determining the truth of this would require a considerable amount of reliance on trusted sources. This raises a bigger question: who can you trust to be truthful?

Discovering religious truth is perhaps the most important – and the most complex – of all. There will be more said on this in later blogs after we have looked into the nature of critical thinking and the way in which experience conditions us.

Please note: any discussions on Obamacare resulting from this blog will be deleted. I will be interested in discussing it in the future, but not until much more groundwork has been laid and we can give it the attention a complicated matter deserves.