On how religion kills us

Well I've been rather quiet lately, largely because 1) grad school is busy and 2) there's been so much colossal stupidity floating around that I simply don't have the time to sift through and respond appropriately to some of it. But occasionally, you just can't help yourself.

Sometimes, you stumble across something so monumentally moronic - so inconceivably idiotic - that it just begs to be ripped to shreds. These sorts of things need to be blogged lest the sheer force of my rage and fury will pour out of my body whether I want it or not.

What has cause me to reach such a pinnacle of stunned disbelief? Great enough for me to resort to cliche alliteration?

I present this stunning rant of inanity.

There are more things wrong with this article tham I can even articulate in words, but let me sum it up as saying this is a prime example of why relying on religion rather than reason can directly cause us harm both as a society and as individuals.

Not to mention the bone-headed lack of scientific knowledge...though I guess I should have figured that out when they led their arguments off with this...

"The message is positive, edifying, requires only an eighth grade level understanding of science, a good measure of common sense and faith the size of a mustard seed."

That's good for the writers, because they evidently satisfy those conditions (but just barely). Perhaps as they were writing this, it should have given them pause and made them think that, I dunno, maybe climate change is slightly more complicated than we thought...maybe it does require more than an 8th-grade understanding of our world. Maybe it requires expertise approaching doctorate level, which is why there's a steep gradient in opinion between those who know the system and those who don't. Maybe, just maybe, they should be telling themselves, the experts aren't conspiring, but actually know the system better than some auto mechanics. But I digress.

Hopefully, the article will improve...let's see...

"Before I propose an alternative view, let’s get a better understanding of the atmosphere, fossil fuels and the "carbon cycle." Our atmosphere is comprised of many gases including Nitrogen (80%) oxygen (20%) and Co2 (.035 %). Co2 is a molecule of 2 elements: oxygen and carbon. Animals, including humans, inhale these gases and absorb some of the oxygen and exhale the mixture of carbon and oxygen as Co2. On the other half of the cycle, photosynthetic plants absorb and separate the Co2 molecules, storing the carbon as sugars and tissue while releasing the oxygen back to the atmosphere. Co2 is but of one the gases labeled as a "greenhouse" gas. Greenhouse gases cause heat retention in the atmosphere and without them the planet temperature would be to cold for habitation."

Well it appears we're still going with the whole "8th grade science" level. First off, plants combine CO2 into complex sugars, not separating them out. Other than that, the statements are correct, if dramatically oversimplified. But the final sentence is what I take issue with: yes, greenhouse gases are necessary to warm the planet. The problem is not that we have greenhouse gases, but we're increasing the levels too much and too quickly. One could point out that our robust warming atmosphere is what separates Earth from Mars, but one must not forget that continued increases in greenhouse gas can lead to a Venus.

Well ok, the authors can be forgiven for omitting some details, I guess. Let's move on...

"Many propose that Co2 emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels result in unfavorable atmospheric changes to our planet such as: longer hotter summers, colder snowier winters, rising sea levels, increased temperatures, vanishing water supplies, and a host of farming problems resulting in food shortages...This theory is presented with an urgency to correct this problem immediately before we reach a tipping point of no return.

It's not just a "proposition" as the authors would like to have you think. We have already seen these effects in action: remember the brutal heat waves last year, followed by the coldest winter on record? And have you seen the outlook for water use in California, which has to buy water from other states? These aren't just "possibilities", they are actualities that are already happening. And this is just the temperature effects; the authors don't even touch on the more insidious effects of increasing CO2 concentrations in the ocean, which are already starting to devastate productivity. And there are even some who would say we've already passed the point of no return and are in damage control mode. So let's be honest, guys...this isn't up for scientific debate. Don't frame a controversy that is entirely fabricated.

They then explore what fossil fuels are and why burning them increases CO2 levels. Surprisingly enough, they get most of it right, if it's still simplified to a great extent. But as soon as you start to gather hope that this won't be a font of stupidity...

"Could these changes be beneficial rather than harmful? The purpose of this article is to suggest that the atmosphere is able as part of the Infinite Wisdom and Sovereignty of God which may be surprisingly "greener" than we may think."

That's right: global warming is ok because God put fossil fuels there for us to use. And it gets better! It might actually be a good thing. By this point, I was already expressing a mixture of a pained groan and delirious laughing, but I managed to muddle onwards. After all, I was curious about the supposed benefits of increased CO2. After all, some studies have shown limited and localized benefits; maybe they'll actually quote the science (in what would be a first for Fox News)!

"When these gases are "reintroduced" to the atmosphere additional warming "may" occur. However, other effects occur that result in more favorable conditions that support life and improve plant development. Co2 is fertilizer and plants love it! Plants and vegetation will likely grow faster with higher yields than ever before in places where such growth was once impossible. Sea levels "may" be higher than times past but new ground also may be exposed from under ice sheets."

Ok, we can first of all get rid of the "may"s..."has occurred" and "will be higher" are appropriate in the respective places. But ignoring that, what about this interesting claim about CO2. Hmmm, well for one thing, CO2 is not a fertilizer...ammonia and phosphorous are. But what about this claim that plants will do better with more CO2? Well on the surface it makes sense...plants need it, after all. But the problem is, they aren't limited by it; just as we already have all the oxygen we need and wouldn't benefit from increased levels, plants are no longer limited by CO2. If anything, they're limited by light, which is a major consideration considering the anticipated increase in cloudiness (a direct function of temperature). And as sea levels rise, it's going to completely swamp any gain in land from ice sheet retreat. We'll gain Greenland, parts of Canada, and Antarctica, but the increase in sea level will swamp most of that land and then some. So the net result is going to be less land and slower plant growth, if anything.

So, when you get down to it, the science is just plain wrong. 8th-grade level, anyone? But the problem, what really made me froth and foam at the mouth, was their final justification: God wants us to mine these things and burn these fuels.

"It is our view that mining and burning fossil fuels is part of God's providence and plan for our age and that the by-product of Co2 is restorative rather than destructive, helpful rather than harmful and good rather than evil. Fossil fuels are for man's benefit and God's glory. Let us not be seduced by worldviews that call evil what God has called good. May it never be."

See, when you invoke God, you can cast all the responsibility to a being that may or may not even exist. The science stops mattering, and any consequences become a priori God's will. Rationality is cast by the wayside, evidence is meaningless, and we continue like blind pack mules to our self-wrought doom.

But it's not all bad...they even manage to throw in some unwitting comedy.

"In closing, we would like to point out that we all have a responsibility to be good stewards of God's gifts. Let us not be wasteful and as we become aware of real problems make real changes."

Hmmm...so the millions of species we're projected to drive extinct as a result of climate change? Does our stewardship of those count? Either follow your own tune or change it.