June 29, 2007
To: journal@csps.com
To: ronballardcsb@charter.net
Subject: Global warming in April Journal
Attn: editors
Attn: Jeffrey Hildner
Dear Jeffrey, Ron and editors,

I believe the six page article or conversation (pp 46-51) in The Christian Science Journal for April 2007 on the subject "Healthy planet/green planet: global warming and prayer" by Jeffrey Hildner and Ron Ballard is grievously flawed. Not because the authors express opinions (don't we all), but because they identify unproven human hypotheses as proven fact and almost divinely ordained, and invite all readers of the Journal to pray in support of these hypotheses and policy prescriptions. Let me explain by commenting on selected quotations from the article.

p. 46 "Everyone can rise to the challenge of global warming through inspired actions, empathy, and ingenuity--fueled by spiritual consciousness + scientific prayer"

Implications: 1. There is universal agreement that global warming hypotheses are valid and proven. Comment: factually false. Among physical and climate scientists as well as professionals in other disciplines including Christian Scientists, there are large differences of viewpoint between the proponents and challengers of the hypotheses, and the challengers hold that the alleged proofs are inadequate and that the contrary evidence is massive.

Implication #2: All Christian Scientists should support the global warming hypotheses with scientific prayer. Comment: if the first implication is factually false, a) the second implication does not follow; and b) the entire six-page article becomes an editorial dereliction for allowing it to appear in the Journal, because it in effect takes the position that divine Science requires us to take a specified, unproven human hypothesis (there is a global warming crisis) as being divinely true, and requires us to find the prayer basis whereby to support the human policy prescriptions based upon that human hypothesis.

Regarding the word unproven, one aspect is that a large part of the alleged proof lies in computer modeling of climate change. It is probably obvious that the conclusions drawn from such models depend on the inputs (assumptions) put into the models, which in turn depend 1. on the theories held by the modelers, and 2. on the degree of accurate measurement and understanding of all the factors affecting world climate, which to date is very far from perfect.

p. 47 "Low-carbon economy/low-carbon industry/low-carbon behavior. A new low-carbon world. Inevitable? Yes." Here, Jeffrey presents his personal human opinion as fact, humanly scientific and divinely scientific fact. This is inappropriate, because factually, a new low-carbon world is not inevitable, unless one assumes that governmental organizations will push through such a policy prescription regardless of scientific opinion and regardless of probable disastrous consequences.

"Today people think green." The implication here is that all people think green, but the fact of the matter is that, yes, many people probably think green, but many others do not, from deep-lying conviction and in-depth study, both lay people and natural and climate scientists, as well as Christian Scientists. The term 'green' does not encompass all people concerned about the environment, but rather denotes a particular set of beliefs and policy prescriptions for forwarding concerns about mankind and the environment. Those who are concerned for the environment but eschew the label 'green' hew to a different set of convictions and policy prescriptions as to how to forward a healthy environment and earth.

p. 48. "I'd like to probe deep and wide." But Jeffrey does so only within the 'green,' global warming proponents belief and hypothesis system, thereby leaving unprobed what to me (as one person who has studied the issues in some depth) is the most illuminating evidence and reasoning pertinent to the global warming discussion.

In this context, consider these words of a climate scientist, Robert Balling, Jr, Professor of Geography at Arizona State University, and former Director of the Office of Climatology there: "I have become increasingly concerned that a wide gap has opened between many of the policy-oriented groups and the science-oriented groups. Too often policy makers appear to neglect the enormous evidence that argues against the greenhouse disaster and freely accept and promote the scientific evidence in favor of the crisis. It is imperative that the policies developed for the global warming issue be built on the best science available, not on the extreme viewpoints that seem to satisfy and justify the policymakers. The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat."

Jeffrey once again, same page: "...the [February] release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprising 2500 climate experts from 113 countries and convened by the United Nations ... concluded that the evidence for global warming is 'unequivocal' ... the primary cause can be pegged to human activities, ... called for urgent action and warned of major impacts ahead."

Jeffrey appears to take this report as divinely ordained truth. However, consider: 1. Many scientists consider the IPCC to be an agenda driven, rather than a science driven, organization, and question its methodology. That is, that it starts with the agenda, and then selects the 'science' and rationale that will support the agenda. Consider the agenda, which can arguably be identified as creating a widely believed sense of crisis with attendant widespread fear, both of which can be used to minimize resistance to further coercive governmental restrictions on liberty, about which the Bible says, "...where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." 2. Over 17000 scientists have signed a petition opposing the Kyoto agreement and any similar proposals. [Note: As of January 2010, this figure has almost doubled to over 31000 in a 2 1/2 year period, and the two figures in the next sentence will be correspondingly increased.] They include "2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate” and "5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.” This is quoted from an on-line site <www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm> which includes all the names of the scientists, the petition, and an eight [now twelve] page summary (impressive) of the science supporting the petition.

On p. 49 Jeffrey brings Ron into the discussion with the question: "When it comes to prompt action, how can prayer help?" By the tenor of his response, Ron apparently agrees that it is already settled that the human policy prescriptions in question are in accord with divine law.

Consider his words, "...self-constricting paradigms" toward the bottom of the second column on p. 49. It can probably be safely assumed that he has in mind the proclivity of industry and consumers to utilize carbon-based sources of energy. However, could not those words equally well apply to a human agenda of creating a crisis of fear to assist in coercively constricting liberty? It depends on what the problem is identified to be. Shouldn't prayer start sooner than only after we have humanly identified a problem? Shouldn't prayer be included in identifying the true nature of the problem?

Consider his words in the following paragraph: "...a problem with the epic proportions of global warming..." Has he not bought into the belief of a fear-filled crisis of epic proportions? What if the apparent crisis is a fabrication, as over 31000 scientists believe?

If agenda driven science is junk science, is not agenda driven prayer junk prayer? Does not all true prayer include a component of "Thy will be done?"

On p. 50, Jeffrey addresses "negative side effects" expected to result from the IPCC policy prescriptions, "such as unemployment, dislocated lives, and poverty" and then asks Ron for a prayer basis whereby to avoid these side effects. Ron, on p.51, refers to them as "impacts" on "employment, global economy, and day-to-day lives." Neither has "probed deep and wide" enough to 1. Inquire whether the negative expected effects may be because the policy prescriptions are mistaken, or whether it is appropriate to pray to avoid the poor consequences of what may be mistaken, willful positions, 2. To investigate the extent of devastation to be expected from implementing the IPCC policy prescriptions, or 3. To inquire whether there are viable alternatives.

One can readily find a dozen books challenging the global warming hypothesis merely by going to amazon.com and doing a search on global warming, and there is a constant stream of articles on the internet challenging the hypothesis, by various authors. One such author is George Reisman, Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics, who has written two recent articles especially relevant to points 2 and 3 in my previous paragraph. In his 'The Arithmetic of Environmentalist Devastation' <www.mises.org/story/2591> he uses simple arithmetic to reveal the extent of devastation to be expected. Here is his net summing up: "Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe--a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions."

In his 'Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is' <www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman39.html> he speaks (among other things) to the question of whether there are viable alternatives in two ways: 1. How to cope with rising sea levels (if they occur) without destroying industrial civilization and thereby causing billions of people to die, and 2. Should it become necessary to cool the earth, how it could be done, once again, without destroying industrial civilization. Both articles are well worth reading, because it should be obvious that if there is any probability that the IPCC policy recommendations, if implemented, would result in the death of billions, we should carefully consider before supporting them.

I would like to mention one other source because it deals with what may well be the newest and most thought arresting research conclusions relating to climate change. It is the book, 'The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change' by Svensmark and Calder, c2007. For a thorough review, go to <www.amazon.com>, search for Svensmark, click on the book title, click on customer reviews, then go to the Donald Anderson review (third from earliest review: 11th of 13 at this writing).