Each of us must decide what to do with each day. In this fast-moving age of digital information we are constantly bombarded with urgent appeals for help. Appeals become a veritable digital deluge, a flood of electronic chaos that threatens to drown us in misery. Deciding which problems are genuine is not the most difficult challenge. No, the difficulty is to discern which we might reasonably take on and hope to make a difference.
The digital age has reduced the size of the world. Problems that were distant, in another land, are now brought to our digital doorstep. Given the velocity of information in the digital age, we are flooded not only with legitimate but also with many illegitimate demands for action. Environmental crises loom large in the modern consciousness. However, our perception of crisis is most often not the product of personal experience. Instead, it is a product of media designed to play on our hopes and fears.
This world is full of real problems. But in today's climate we are more than ever liable to be swept along by expertly crafted narratives that stretch truth and swell our inboxes. How then can one determine which of our perceptions of reality are true, and which are fear mongering? more >>
There is a movement sweeping across the globe manifesting itself in the fiery hearts of those preaching the gospel of "the stark truth of climate change," insisting the divestment of fossil fuels will "save" the planet. Even President Obama claims, "the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact." A reasonably dramatic statement, given that nothing is ever settled in the world of science.
Why is the movement so convincing? Is it our eagerness to trust information spoon-fed to us by pop culture and a not-so-fair-and-balanced Internet, rather than rolling up our sleeves to dig for truth? Social media and 140-word tweets have taken the world by storm and have left us dimwitted in their wake it seems. Claiming man can answer what ails the planet when we're not sure if anything is wrong is a fool's errand that largely overinflates man's position in the hierarchy of things.
God did lay out the pecking order. "What is man," asked the Psalmist, "that you take notice of him…you gave him dominion over the work of your hands, and you put all things under his feet…" Clearly, we see man is charged with sensible stewardship and proper utilization of creation. The big stuff is left for God to handle. And that is the tough, faith-y part because then we are forced to consider what we really believe about God. Did the omniscient God who created the heavens and the earth have a workable plan for coexistence in mind when he also created man? more >>
In the account of the Exodus, God's people had a bright future ahead of them, if they only would trust in the Lord and lean not on their own understanding.
The days of wandering in the desert aren't too different than the days we inhabit. Then like now, the cultural challenges seemed stacked against us. Then like now, God still has more to do with each of us, yet many evangelicals are calling for a return, a return to Egypt, a return to separation from the culture.
In the book of Numbers we find the account of Caleb. Moses through God led the Israelite refugees through Sinai to the edge of "The Promised Land." He then sends twelve men to explore this land of milk and honey. After 40 days, they return. One, Caleb, sees the hope for a better future. The others are fearful and cause the people to cry out, "If only we had died in Egypt." more >>
Late last year a group of evangelical environmentalists associated with the Office of Social Justice (OSJ) of the Christian Reformed Church, after returning from visiting Kenya, were featured in a series of videos titled "Climate Conversation: Kenya in which they say poor Kenyans are suffering from reduced rainfall caused by manmade global warming.
"It's unfortunate, but farmers all over Africa are talking about changing weather patterns," says Dr. Dennis Garrity, Director General, World Agroforestry Center, U.S.A. "There has been enormous changes in the onset of the rainy season, the length of the rains, the duration and the intensity of drought during the rainy season. And it all fits the scientific evidence that Africa is in fact the area of the world that is going to suffer the most from climate change."
Craig Sorley, Care of Creation Director for Kenya, explains, "Farmers in the past, when I was a young man, always say the rains were so predictable. And now the rains have become very unpredictable. They are playing a guessing game as to when the rains are going to arrive." more >>
Did manmade global warming cause the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS?
A new paper, Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought, PNAS, March 2, 2015, summarized its findings by saying, "the 2007-2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers."
It went on to say, "Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results [emphasis added], strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007-2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone." more >>
Earlier this week, I wrote about Dr. James Enstrom's successful settlement of his lawsuit against UCLA. Long a dissenter against environmentalist scare-mongering, Dr. Enstrom sued UCLA officials (full disclosure: my colleagues and I at ACLJ represented him) after they fired him shortly after Dr. Enstrom discovered that new California regulations of diesel emissions were based on junk science advanced by a scientist with a fraudulent degree — a doctorate purchased from the fictional "Thornhill University." Dr. Enstrom also discovered that the scientific review panel tasked with reviewing this science was stocked with ideologues who'd long overstayed mandatory term limits.
The case was hard-fought, with the university filing two motions to dismiss, followed by lengthy and grueling discovery. While the issues were largely constitutional (did the university fire Dr. Enstrom because of his constitutionally protected speech?), the constitutional dispute was motivated by a sharp "scientific" disagreement over the health danger of diesel particulate. I use the scare quotes because UCLA's actions hardly reflected scientific ideals. Here's an interesting excerpt from a deposition with Dr. Enstrom's dean at the time of his termination (the questioner is an ACLJ lawyer):
Q: Okay. Do you have a general knowledge with regard to Dr. Enstrom's research regarding diesel particulate matter? more >>