28 Responses to “an inconvenient truth”

1. Jeff Says:
   June 18th, 2006 at 11:48 pm

   Hi Don.

   Love your books — they have been a tremendous source of encouragement to me.

   I do, however, strongly disagree with you on this issue (not to mention your opinion of Al Gore). Are you aware that only a very small fraction of Gore’s scientists actually work in the climate field? I would recommend you do further research on “global warming.”

   You might start Here.

   Here’s a quote from the article:

   “Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

   I hope I’ve disagreed without being disagreeable.

   Grace and Peace,

   Jeff

2. BrettR Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 11:51 am

   The scientific model that is being used to draw the conclusions in this movie is questionable. There is more evidence that has been gathered to propose that man has little effect on climate change than there is that man has a direct effect on climate change. Yet, we need to be responsible for the environment that we live in. To love Jesus, in my opinion, is to love his creation and desire to maintain it so that others can see the unique finger print of God. Many who support this film love the creation more than Jesus, so Christians have the tendency to dismiss the argument because of the audience. This is foolish. It is sad to see what our national interest has done to some beautiful places around the earth, and it is a shame that the film doesn’t spend more time showing these effects in exchange for some shoddy science. I enjoy the handiwork of Jesus, the poetry that he built in the skies, rivers, lakes, and mountains, and I want to be able to share that with the ones I love. The problem is that I want to drive there to see it. Rent this film when it comes out on DVD and draw your own conclusions. Jesus is the answer to the environment; poor science can get in the way.

   Thanks for sharing what is on your heart, Don. I am concerned that you may be taking what a scientist says as truth just because it is a “scientist.” I love your heart and your desire to do what is right for the Creator and the creation.

   BrettR

3. Tim Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pm

   I find that nature is a great place to meet God, to clear my mind of distractions, such as work, sin, traffic, etc, and to find peace and breath. Whether it is at the beach or a state park or park in the middle of a busy metropolis, I would like to see all of these places preserved, cared for, and treated with respect.

   I have no fear of people thinking of me differently as they see my wife and I save cardboard, magazines, & junk mail to take to our city recycling center. We even travel hundreds of miles with wrapping paper in our trunk after Christmas to recycle. I love Jesus, I love God, and I love their Creation, which are people and nature.

   But I find this subject ironic. It is a media agenda to get us hot and bothered over this issue, and while America has led the world before in over-using of resources, is no longer true (see China’s and India’s booming growth).

   It’s not just the Republicans who are “inactive”, as the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification, which in 1997 voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America’s trade competitors.

   But the biggest irony of all is that just 30 years ago there was a similar panic. Except 30 years ago, it was about global cooling. Now since I won’t be turning 30 until January, I have to depend on the following:

   * Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”
   * Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.”
   * The Christian Science Monitor (”Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.”
   * Newsweek agreed (”The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling
   * New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said [global cooling] “may mark the return to another ice age.”
   * New York Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”

   It seems to me that it is possible that the earth has been changing for as long as it has existed, a length of time that I don’t need to have defined. But it also occurs to me that maybe God really is smarter than us all, that he created the earth, knowing we would trash it in our sinful ways of trying to achieve His status, in a way that it would sustain itself until He was ready to bring a new heaven and new earth.

   With that in mind, let’s discuss ways to USE and SAVE the earth to serve each other, love each other, and trust that God is still in control over the heavens and the earth.

   (thanks to George Will for letting me steal the above-mentioned references to “global cooling”)

4. Mike Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

   Some great comments in this discussion. While I have not seen the film, nor do I have as much background information as previous posters, I feel global warming, whether a real or perceived threat, as a means to an end to treat Earth better. Maybe there isn’t global warming, either way would moving towards using cleaner more efficient fuels and taking better care of our resources be a bad thing? Say a doctor diagnosis you with heart disease causing you to east better, excercise, quit smoking, then you find out you were mis-diagnosed. Are you not still much better off?

5. Mike Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 1:22 pm

   Please excuse my several grammatical errors in that post. Proof reading is often a good idea I do not employ.

6. Jeff Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

   I agree with what’s been said in the comments. We should certainly take good care of this wonderful creation that God has entrusted to us. I don’t know of anyone who advocate pollution or thinks it good to “rape the world’s resources”.

   What I have a problem with is having my Christianity called into question because I haven’t swallowed the global warming theory hook, line, and sinker. Or because I happen to vote Republican most of the time. Every time I read Sojourners, I feel like they would consider me something less than a true follower of Jesus.

   I believe we need to be a bit more discerning and not buy into everything the mainstream media says about environmental issues.

   Check out This Post on how scientists are becoming the new priesthood that cannot be questioned and cannot be challenged.

7. Blunt Jackson Says:
   June 19th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

   The amazing thing is that the bad science and even worse spin put on the fact of climate change continues to convince people despite overwhelming scientific and experiential observations to the contrary.

   People who don’t believe that serious science is uniform on the matter of climate change might want to check out wikipedia’s compilation of opinions here, much of which is based on this study in Science Magazine.

   For those of you referencing articles from the 1970’s. That was 30 years ago. Not only has science progressed since then, so has the climate.

   The most common spin that big oil puts on all this scientific evidence is “there is no conclusive evidence or understanding about how climate change actually happens, which means that all these studies have proven nothing.”

   What they *have* proven is that the climate *is* changing.

   There are almost certainly a wide number of factors from carbon dioxide to the ozone layer, and some of these factors are counteracting each other. There may also be factors that are not of human origin, or which are side effects rather than direct results of human activity (such as algae blooms as a consequence of the widespread destruction of the Ocean’s fish populations).

   But the fact of the matter is that overpopulation across the world and overconsumption in the first world are dramatically destabilizing the global ecosystem, and if we don’t get off our fat butts and show some real stewardship things are going to change.

   I would never ask anyone to swallow any idea hook, line, and sinker — and that includes both scientific understanding (which is a constantly evolving body of knowledge) and theology. But I would ask people to take the notion of stewardship seriously, and to look at where their information comes from, what political and economic interests it serves.

   There’s no question that some people in the left sometimes exhibit sloppy thinking, which is no different from people everywhere. Alarmist descriptions of the impending doom of the planet can also serve a political agenda. So take Al Gore with a grain of salt, but don’t ignore the facts.

   Now… anyone want to talk hurricane counts this summer? I’ll put my money on 14 named storms, and 5 major.

8. Jai Wynne Says:
   June 20th, 2006 at 9:34 pm

   It seems to me that the left is buying into Al Gore’s global warming movie the way they bought into Michael Moore’s hateful “Farenheit” movie.Moore is a self serving Hollywood type and Al Gore is a self serving politician who has a political agenda and always will.Not to mention Gore’s craving for public attention.Beware of politicians who claim they’re on your side,I’ve not come across one yet. The day politicians truly care for the American public in general will be the day the Pope abandons the faith. If Don Miller thinks Al Gore cares so much for the American family maybe Gore should start re-thinking his pro-abortion stance. Al Gore seems to get lost in the shuffle between election years and pops back up with some sort of gimicky stunt to thrust him back into the public limelight. With Gores track record of buffoonery(inventinting the internet-really?) you can’t help but be skeptical when he revs up the propaganda machine and has it rolling full tilt.Ya know,I think too much CNN will cause you to go blind.

   Jai Wynne

9. angelaw Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 1:09 am

   i do think it’s interesting that we are so upset when donald voices his support about environmental issues; or any idead for that matter. donald, i don’t think you have to be a poster child for anything.

   i encourage anyone who’s interested to listen to a series put on by my brilliant pastor brucy cavey, at http://www.themeetinghouse.org. entitled, “Organic”. it’s in three parts and is very interesting. my favourite point is defintely the idea that evangelicals believe God is going to destroy the earth with fire, and that doesn’t necessarily inspire us to mind the idea of creation care. haha. i understand we will always argue about things, as this is the nature of our faith whether we like to admit it or not. i also just saw the “an inconvenient truth” tonight. i have to say - i would rather take heed and convert to the school of global warming, then let my children watch the world waste away because I was too hard headed to change my stubborn mind. just a pascal-ish thought… haha.

   I wish we could be so gracious as to give other ideas a chance - I so often find myself stuck in the rut i call certainty, founded on “faith”. perhaps i don’t know everything after all….

10. Sara Little Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 2:15 am

    im not going to pretend like i am an expert in the political field, as a matter of fact i dislike politics as a whole and try to stay away from it. but it is so difficult when you are an independent and your views are split. i hate to generalize, and/or stereotype but this is my view on your comments about the global warming/christian circle.

    i find that christians can be very opinionated. this can be driven from extreme faith and loyalty but unfortunatly, especially when it comes to other people, they become judgemental as far as other people, so topics such as gay marriage and abortion are of greater value in their minds then that of the environment. i myself believe that people are more inportant that the earth but i have faith in God that both will be taken care of. i do strongly believe that our earth should be helped in every way possible and the global warming issue is very important but it is not only things like fuel burning that is causing this problem. for instance, the gaseous waste of cows from corn feed contributes, we feed our cattle extra corn to make them fatter for the consumer, but if we were to feed them less of this it would sufficiently diminish that side of the problem. i know its strange but it what ive heard from quite reliable sources. oh how hard it is to disagree with some issues and agree with others on both sides of the government!
    i guess what ive taken a long time to say is i don’t think its fair that you claim that republican christians are on the wrong side of the issue, they may only vote for one, and their thoughts may be split. many may care for global warming.
    Have a wonderful day!!

11. Jai Wynne Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 8:40 am

    Please allow me to post what I think would be a typical Don Miller reply to many of the posts above:

    I am very encouraged by the discussion created by my review of Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient truth”. I hope this has made us all more aware of the dangers facing our climate and enviroment. If I had to degrade and alienate several groups of people and create a controversy to get my point across so be it. After all it’s worth it in the long run and I get more hits to my website that way.

12. bryan Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 9:55 am

    jai, speaking for yourself is great. speaking for Don, though, is pretty pointless. Well maybe pointelss is the wrong word, but i don’t think you’d appreciate someone putting words in your mouth. especially when you say things as off base as “i get more hits to my website that way”…if you think don is concerned about web traffic, then you probably don’t know as much about don as you think. i’m not trying to sound smarmy, but just wanted to share. please continue to voice your opinions and share your thoughts.

13. BrettR Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    I agree with Don on some things and disagree on many others. I enjoy his writing and I value his opinion. I would rather he state his opinion and have it be known than to take a positional stand based on party line or political sub-group. I disagree from a position of respect and admiration for Don as a writer. I don’t know him; he may be as big of a shmuck as me. If anything I post seems like an attack, it is not. A blog is a blog is a blog.

    Keep up the good work, Don.

    BrettR

14. Jai Wynne Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    Bryan,
    Don’t be so defensive! Who’s to say what’s “off base” and what’s not. It’s all pretty subjective don’t you think? I happen to think what Miller says sometimes is very “off base” as do others in here. Somethings become very predictable you know? I do appreciate you allowing me to continue sharing my opinion.Smarmy?

15. bryan Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    haha. smarmy is a word isnt it? maybe not. and i wasn’t “allowing” you to continue to share your thoughts, i was “encouraging” it. sorry if i came across as being defensive, i dont mean to be. its just that i see every comment posted here, and many of them are negative (whcih is cool) and alot of the negative ones are very thoughtful responses. i just felt like your response was worded in a way that it took a few shots below the belt at Don, but looking back at it now i guess it wasnt too bad.

    I honestly am not some pro-DonMiller lackey who drinks all his kool-aid. i’m just like most folks here, a fan of his writing, and i am interested in his thoughts on other topics. some i agree with, some i dont. it just irks me when attacks against him get personal or cross some imaginary line i have in my head. but like you said, its all subjective.

    cool name, by the way.

16. Jai Wynne Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    Bryan,
    I appreciate your last post. I too get into reading Millers books and usually like taking a few pokes when I sense some contradiction between the writing in his books and the posts on his website. Miller’s been known to take a few pokes(as posted at the top)of his own so,I figure he shouldn’t mind a few back at him. Nothing personal you know? Just a little satire and tongue in cheek humor to get the point across.I don’t think it’s any suprise that many have called out Miller on his post–it is rather inflammatory. Are we cool? Hey by the way–I like Kool-aid.

17. a.n.a Says:
    June 21st, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Im just a comment reader and Jai your comments are not nice “tounge in cheek humor” like you say. Just leaving negatory comments doesnt really help anyone or change anyones mind. When I come to read Dons thoughts I am interested in what he has to say..not just in calling him out on what I dont personally agree with. Sorry, I just had to say.

18. Jai Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 9:04 am

    A.N.A,
    Lighten up would you? I am just as interested as you are to hear what someone has to say,and that is why I took time to respond to it. Like I said before, if you make inflammatory statements you’d better get ready for controversy.I’m sure Miller expects it. I don’t mind that you made “negative” comments and didn’t “agree” with my post,I don’t take it personally. If you didn’t notice, Miller’s post was “calling out” people who don’t take the care of our environment seriosly and he was “negative” and didn’t “agree” with them. I don’t see you making a comment toward his negativity, or do you just like hearing one view point? Being a yes man all your life is not good and your post to me was a good start.Thanks!

19. Mike Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 11:42 am

    CNN just posted an article stating that Earth is the warmest it has been in 400 years.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

    I’m just interested in what it will take for those who do not believe in global warming to actually give it some merit.

    I feel this is similar to two sides debating whether a meteorite headed for Earth will collide with the Earth or not. If it does hit neither side will have time to say “I was right/wrong.” We all be too busy being dead.

20. Geof F. Morris Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    400 years is a blink of time in the Earth’s history, though. The geological record indicates that the Earth has both been far hotter and far colder than it is now. Why do we presume that we have such a large impact when the Earth’s climate has a long tradition of radical change without our input?

    This is not to say that we should use resources like there’s no tomorrow, though. One simply has to look to China’s “fresh” water supply to see what happens when command economies ignore environmental quality. One simply has to look at the tasks which American drivers perform and compare them to the capabilities of their vehicles to see that most of us are driving vehicles ill-suited to the actual task at hand [and I include myself in this, as I drive a small pickup and never use it for much more than commuting].

21. Blunt Jackson Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    It is true that the Earth’s climate has changed wildly in the past without our help: massive lava flows, meteor impacts, and extra-atmospheric dust storms have all contributed to climate change, as have the regular cycles of the earth’s magnetic field. The Earth has suffered far worse structural damage than anything we are doing, and it has survived, and so has life.

    However, it is naive to pretend that our environmental practices are insufficient to affect the climate. There is overwhelming evidence that we do change the climate: from rainy weekends caused by traffic dynamics in major metropolitan areas right on up. Moreover, it is simply unconscionable for us as stewards of God’s green earth *not* to use our increasing knowledge responsibly.

    True: there may be factors other than human causing any current trends. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take our responsibility seriously. Particularly those of us in the first world who are devouring the vast majority of the Earth’s resources. Even aside from climate change, our unchecked consumption of resources is creating a legacy of starvation, poison, pollution, and radioactive contamination for tens or even hundreds of generations to come. (And if you think I’m just a liberal greenhead for bringing up radiation, take note that I live in Washington, where contamination from the Hanford Nuclear Reserve is about to reach the Columbia river — 1 million gallons of contaminated waste have already reached groundwater.)

    Individual choice (what to drive, when to drive, how to recycle, what to eat, etc.) are all small choices, but as a culture we also need to make big choices about how we structure our economy, our agriculture, our fuel allocation. And, unfortunately, this is where we are failing most abominably.

22. Margie Brenner Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    This response is for anyone who is even remotely interested in God and creation… Check out Rob Bell’s “Everything is Spiritual” tour in July. You won’t be disappointed. I wasn’t. If you go, just make sure you take a couple of Advils before the show - because your brain might ache a bit afterwards.

    http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/NewsRoom/Rob+Bell+Tour.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan

23. angelaw Says:
    June 22nd, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    i left a comment up there with the wrong web link. the real site for my church is http://www.themeetinghouse.ca that should work better. although i’m sure that other church is lovely too….

    haha. take care, a.

24. Chris Says:
    June 23rd, 2006 at 8:25 am

    I’m probably making this argument too simple, but the earth is a finite resource. If we believe the Bible, then we know this earth will pass away (1Corinth 7:31). In response to Donald’s note about Republican’s and Abortion…For me as a Christian first and a conservative, standing for life is easy compared to the earth. Humans were created in God’s image and were given authority by God over the earth.

25. Tim Says:
    June 23rd, 2006 at 10:48 am

    What irks me about this whole “debate” is those that believe there is global warming rather than a cycle of global climate change seem to be more intent on blaming and shaming people into changing their environmental behaviors rather than encouraging a preservation of our resources.

    What I find encouraging and agreeable with those that believe there is a cycle global climate change is that they admit we have had an impact on the environment and we should change our behaviors, our dependencies, and our policies, but that there is still a natural element at work.

    What I would love to see is the following:
    a.) the global warming camp admit that our increases in technology have allowed us to measure, but the estimates of decades, and especially centuries, of temperature data are just estimates. So let’s discuss the last 25 years, or 30, giving credit to the cooling phase that occurred.

    b.) Let’s stop talking in absolutes. The whole earth isn’t in a warming pattern. The southeast US has actually been cooling. Let’s talk about local effects. Let’s organize local changes. (See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

    c.) those that are completely not believing we have an impact on the earth open their minds to that possibility.

    Again, I feel like I’m in the middle of the road. I absolutely believe we are having an impact, but I also believe that the cycle of nature God has created will continue. I try to do my part to cut down my impact. I would like to see more efforts done nationally, but I’m also not going to buy into any “end of the world” talk from the global warming extreme view. I’ll let God handle that part.

    ——
    Random irony/joke of the day:
    In a completely different subject, I was writing an email to a friend in the latest version of Mozilla Thunderbird (1.5.0.4). I used the word “unbiblical” which Thunderbird didn’t recognize in its new spellchecker. So I looked at the suggested replacement words. Here they are, in order as they appeared:

    biblically, biblical, biblicists, bibliographical, publications, publication, and …. Republicans!

    I laughed out loud so hard people in my office wanted to know the joke. As as a Republican myself, albeit moderate, I had no problem sharing the humor I saw in that.

26. Chad Gibbs Says:
    June 23rd, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    The southeast US is cooling?!? If you believe that, then you come mow my grass.

    

27. Tim Says:
    June 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    Chad, Your reply actually makes a very good point for those of us who aren’t all that freaked out about global warming. Since all the data is really only talking about climate change in 0.4 to 0.6 of a degree (+/- 0.2 of a degree), I could say the contrary:

    “The world is warming?!? If you believe that, then you can come shovel my snow.”

    All in good fun.

28. Dale Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Jeff,

    Have any of you who conveniently use Tom Harris’s articles to contradict what the majority of scientists are saying, ever looked up this guys past? He used to be a paid consultant for major energy companies. It’s fact, not opinion. Read up on someone before you push him out front as a real scientific expert. Now he gets paid to do nothing but put doubt in the public’s minds causing them to go back to sleep on this issue. Why do you think big oil would want that?

    It’s much like the tireless efforts of big tobacco to keep trying to convince people there is not enough evidence to prove smoking is a killer. It then killed my father.

    I also am curious as to why Evangelicals get so irate when someone brings up global warming? Are they afraid our planet might get too clean? I mean, what is the downside of leaving a clean planet to our children and grandchildren? They cannot possibly all own stock in Exxon Mobil, can they?

Leave a Comment