Robert Brinsmead
Since Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon went head to head on the state of the world, both sides have been guilty of bringing the debate down to ad hominen arguments. Ehrlich's attacks were disgraceful. He lampooned Simon as an idiot, he derided his lack of scientific credentials and lots more. We all know that these tactics are still in vogue. The so-called climate sceptics are being dubbed deniers to put them in the same boat as the Holocaust deniers of the "tobacco causes cancer" deniers, their credentials are lampooned ("what they write is not peer-reviewed," "they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals,"), they are financed by the energy industry, they ought to be tried as climate criminals, they are pre-Copernican Flat Earthers, or conspiracy theorists that see reds under the beds. And being human like every one else, the sceptics (who prefer to be called climate rationalists or climate realists) are prone to talk about scientific fraud, statistical cherrypicking, swindles, and the best one I've heard is to liken the modellers to wankers (is that an Australianism?), for the quip goes like this, "Climate modelling is like masturbation - those who indulge in it too much are liable to mistake it for the real thing."

And then there are the not too subtle accusations from either side that funding is corrupting the science - either from the energy industry or from the great stream of money that goes into climate research from more acceptable sources. Then it is not hard to blame politics for corrupting the science. I don't discount any of this completely. It is tempting for trade protectionists to hide behind climate protectionism, surely! Last but not least, there are all the interest groups who want to make a buck out of the huge global warming industry, right down to that slippery Indian "manufacturer" who sold $300M of carbon credits to a British firm in return for it(the Indian) curtailing the manufacturing of CFC's that they had no intention of making in the first place. Ha, Ha, Ha!

But at the end of the day, I am not really moved to conclude that any of the forgoing things are the big things that determine the direction of the debate. To illustrate this, I refer to the very different conclusions reached by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan. Neither were scientists, but they had to make some kind of stand on the great environmental questions of their day. By commissioning (and influencing the outcome, of course) of the World 2000 Report, Carter clearly came down on the side of Ehrlich and the Club of Rome - the world was clearly going to hell in a handbasket. Carter basically sided with the Apocalyptic doomsayers. On the other hand Regan stands out as the political player whose super optimism played an enormous role in ending the Cold War, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and so on. Regan was significantly influence by the arguments and outlook of Julian Simon, and so refused to close America to further immigration and certainly not to exciting economic and technological progress. Regan's outlook was certainly in tune with what is sometimes called the American dream. It's what I would describe as the American version of the great Exodus story.

Why was Carter the environmental pessimist and why was Regan the environmental optimist? I am sure Carter today (thrity years on) sees all the same dark clouds on the global warming horizon as Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute; and if Regan was still with us he would surely side with Dick Lindzen, the climate realist, and Regan would still keep making his wise cracks about cows making more greenhouse gas than humans.

Now to my real point. It ought to be obvious that in this Carter versus Regan thing the real determinant in their coming down on one side or the other in this debate was not funding influences, scientific fraud, or that either man was guided by a one-candle powered intellect.

Back to Ehrlich and Simon again. They had access to the same set of scientific facts and statistical data about the state of the world. As Simon used to point out, the data and the statistics he used were easily accessible and available from reputable sources for all to see. Neither man went about trying to hoodwink the public, the media, the politicians or the President with some fraudulent data, even if we have to admit that some of the periphery data might have been a bit suspect at times - and on either side. No, for the most part they were dealing with the same, easily accessible data. It is just that they interpreted the meaning of that data so differently. And the same thing is still going on with Jim Hansen and Dick Lindzen, or for that matter, with the Jimmy Carter's and the Ronald Regan's of this world. It is not so much a difference of intellectual integrity, scientific erudition, disinterested objectivity or such a crass thing as whom is paying who, but it is something much bigger and much more fundamental that is driving this debate and determing whether the same basic data is interpreted after the manner of a James Hansen or a Richard Lindzen. As the poet said,

Two men looked out of prison bars.
One saw mud, the other stars.

Whether one sees sees mud or stars is determined by one's worldview or pre-suppositions about the world that is being looked at. It is what Paul Tillich calls "religion."

Thus his brilliantly stated insight: "Religion as ultimate concern is the meaning-giving substance of culture, and culture is the totality of forms in which the basic concern of religion expresses itself. In abbreviation, religion is the substance of culture, culture is the form of religion." (Theology of Culture, p. 42)

Don't rush over this Tillich gem. Think it through, and put it with your collection of rare and valuable thought-jewels.

If I apply this to Ehrlich and Simon, Carter and Regan or Hansen and Lindzen is means that the men on the different sides of the climate debate interpreted the facts differently because they came to the facts with a different religion. Obviously I don't mean "religion" in the sense of a narrow denominational label, and it is not a matter of whether one man says he believes God exists and the other says he is is agnostic about that. It is matter of getting past all the superficial labels to a person's ultimate concern, and this will be manifested in how one views with world, especially the world of mankind.

Unless the worldview/mindset/presuppositions about the world and the world of mankind - what I will call the big picture stuff - is changed, then nothing really changes. For instance, when Ehrlich's mass human starvation did not take place, or when it was clear that the world was not going to run out of essential resources before the year 2000 as confidently predicted, then Ehrlich and his fellow travellers just went on to other environmental scares - like global warming. If/when global warming alarmism collapses, then they will find something to take its place - unless they change their outlook on the world the world and the human condition.

In the matter of the climate change debate, that outlook comes down to bed-rock questions like these -

1. Is the world fragile or resilient?

2. Is the cosmic order stingy or generous?

3. Is the environment meant to be static or dynamic?

4. Is the expectation one of apocalyptic pessimism or historical optimism?

5. Is human nature essentially bad or essentially good

Wendell Krossa reply:

This is good Bob, reminds me of Breech’s comment on Nietzsche that we hold a basic orientation toward life- denying or affirming- and that shapes how we view reality (what data we accept, how we interpret it). I was just working on a piece on Valuing Humanity for my website. I will lift a thought or two from this and post that later. After the world cools in a decade or so, they will move on to the next scare scenario with lots of little ones in between, you can bet on it. Spoiling the great party of life and hindering human advance. It is such a ‘sin’ against humanity.

Until one gets the fundamental trajectory of reality and life right, nothing else will make much sense. Too long Fall/apocalyptic has told humanity that life is declining from original perfection toward disaster. But our new universe story tells us life is emerging and rising from original chaos, toward more order, complexity, toward a better future. Humanity is an essential part of this rising trend of life.

Let me add that Campbell in Myths To Live By offers one of the finest presentations of what it means to be human that can be found anywhere in English. As with anything there is material for all to quibble with. But overall, it is a refreshing presentation of the glory of being human. He refers to the Eastern contribution regarding our being the embodiment, the expression of divinity in the universe. The eyes, hands, feet, mind of the Invisible Mystery or Mind. Humanity is the new locus or center.

And he does a great job of capturing the Western contribution of individual uniqueness, freedom and creativity.

Lots of good insights such as what we once believed to be out there- the governing spirits and their control of the laws, we now recognize as being within ourselves. We create and change laws. This function that was once believed to belong to the gods we now see as our own function, each of us individually involved. So this great shift from out there to right here within ourselves. This applies to many functions once attributed to deity.