Leonardo Boff wrote about that several years ago in "Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor" (Orbis Books, 1995). Too bad it is taking so long for this link to get out to the main stream.

Posted by: Rob Allen | December 3, 2007 3:41 PM

The right wing morons currently governing Canada (and the U.S.)still don't believe climate change is a scientific reality.

Thanks for the focus on climate change and poverty on your blog.

Bubba

And calling them morons is going to change their minds?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 3, 2007 4:36 PM

The right wing morons currently governing Canada (and the U.S.)still don't believe climate change is a scientific reality.

Thanks for the focus on climate change and poverty on your blog.

Bubba,
Please look at all the facts about climate change before you call anyone names. The facts are that man-made global warming is an unproven "theory." We should be debating and continuing to gather information to find out if humans have any significant impact on the climate and not accept it as a fact just because Al Gore says it's true. Search out all the facts and not just the ones that the advocates of this theory are giving you. I am not saying that humans do not have an impact, I am simply saying that we have no idea!

Al Gore's film was proven to have inaccuracies and you can find them here:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/239376/UK_Judge_Says_Al_Gore_s_Global_Warming_Documentary_Contains_Nine_Scientific_Errors

Here are some more links to take a look at:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=481613&in_page_id=1811

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/11338421.html

Someone won the Nobel Peace Prize for leading a movement and making a film with at least 9 SCIENTIFIC ERRORS in it! You have got to be kidding me. People please search out the truth for yourself and do not allow yourselves to be brainwashed. Do I believe that we are polluting the earth and we should all be better stewards of the earth? Of course I do, but not I do not recycle because of a fear of global warming. This reminds me of the fear that Bush and Cheney played on to get us into Iraq. Search for the truth and keep searching.

Posted by: Russell | December 3, 2007 6:43 PM

Bubba,
First of all I do not know who you are referring to when you said "The right wing morons currently governing Canada (and the U.S.)still don't believe climate change is a scientific reality." Because President Bush does believe in this "scientific reality." I also hope you realize that what you call a "scientific reality" is an unproven theory. Man-made global warming is not a scientific reality and if you believe that then you don't know all of the facts.

First of all, Al Gore's film was found to have at least 9 scientific inaccuracies in it. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of film that he made which contained multiple scientific inaccuracies! Are you kidding me?

There is plenty information and resaerch out there which proves that there is no consensus among scientists and provides evidence to disprove this theory but when I tried to attach links my message did not get posted.

Search out the truth for yourselves people and do not get brainwashed into accepted a theory as fact just because Al Gore tells you it's true. He is a politician! Look for yourselves, do not become ignorant of the truth. The fact is that this is a theory that should be debated and we should continue to research and find the facts, but the fact is that we don't know whether humans are a significant cause of climate change. It could be a natural cycle, it could be the sun, but we don't know yet so please search out the truth for yourself.

Posted by: Russell | December 3, 2007 7:04 PM

First of all, Al Gore's film was found to have at least 9 scientific inaccuracies in it. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of film that he made which contained multiple scientific inaccuracies! Are you kidding me?

This has been discussed before. Follow the Global Warming links at the top of the post. In brief, the UK judge who found the nine so-called errors also admitted that the errors were minor and that overall Gore's movie presents validated information.

...it could be the sun...

It ain't the sun. That's been ruled out. (You don't think scientists would have been stupid and not looked at the sun as a possible cause? Of course they did!!!)

...please search out the truth for yourself.

Good advice. You might want to take it yourself.

But maybe we shouldn't use this forum to rehash the GW debate. It's all been said before--as I mentioned, follow the link above!

Peace!

Posted by: Don | December 3, 2007 7:20 PM

I does believe Bubba is referring to our PM Stephen Harper's reversal of agreement w/ Kyoto that the previous Liberal administration(s) put in place. Mr. Harper's seat in parliament represents the oilpatch which is no friend to Kyoto so his actions are not surprising. Disappointing, yes, surprising, no. Is it any wonder that Harper and Bush are two peas in a pod given their links to big oil? Nada.

Posted by: canucklehead | December 3, 2007 10:31 PM

Kyoto is a good answer to "what's the worst that could happen?". Billions of dollars spent, virtually no provable impact on global warming. It's not moronic to question the wisdom of that idea.

And yes, if people live in your country whose livelihood is dependent on oil production, you had better have a compelling reason for asking them to give up their livelihood. .17 degrees difference over half a century isn't going to get you there.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 3, 2007 11:22 PM

It could be the sun - Venus and Mars are also 'warming' at the same rate as earth is. Not sure that they have SUV's on those planets.

Now it's Venus and Mars? Last time it was Pluto, Mars, and one of the moons of Jupiter. Even if you want to do pseudoscience, you ought to get your facts straight. I'd like to know what the sources for this planetary warming are.

Here's what I wrote on Oct 15--

And guess what: some planets are warming, but not all planets are warming. That strongly suggests that there is no single cause for the warming (such as the oft-suggested increase in the sun's output). No dice, folks. The sun's output does fluctuate, but only about one or two percentage points. Not enough to be responsible for the observed warming of the earth or any other planet.

Besides, a warming of the earth due to an increase in the sun's output would show up even stronger in Venus, which is much closer to the sun. But Venus' surface climate has not experienced warming. And solar output decreases geometrically based on distance from the sun. In other words, a body twice as far as the earth from the sun would receive only 1/4, not 1/2 of the energy from the sun that the earth receives. (This fact is taught in high school physics.) So if an increase in the sun's energy output were warming Mars, which receives only about 44% of the energy the earth receives, it would have caused a much greater warming here on earth.

So the solar system warming "argument" is basically a sham.

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 8:16 AM

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 8:41 AM

'The evidence. Period. Don't look at Al Gore. Look at the evidence.'

But Al is giving the evidence that is flawed or faulty. He is the 'enviormentalist evangelist' for our time. If Billy Graham were preaching false theology - would you allow him to go on 'unchallenged' and just tell the people not to worry about Graham just look at the evidence. But you would still supporting (blindly) Graham and his going around the world promoting Christianity? Wallis and Co would never allow a conservative / evangelical to do this 'unchallenged'. But Wallis will put the mantel of 'enviromental evangelist' on someone that you are telling me to 'not listen to'. This doesn't add up.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 4, 2007 11:08 AM

Don -

Thanks for your valiant efforts on this issue. I don't really think it's just a question of people believing what they want to believe. I, for example, would very much like to believe that man-made global warming is not a monumental crisis that threatens my children's future and that of civilization as a whole. I would find it enormously convenient to be able to believe that. I really want global warming to be a hoax.

I think you get closer to the core of the issue when you say that people have trouble remembering what they learned about science in school. Even there, though, I suspect it's a matter of selective amnesia.

The real problem, as every discussion about GW on the blog makes clear, is that this has become a political issue, and people take sides according to what they perceive to be their political interests. That's why you have to keep telling people not to listen to Al Gore.

That's also why I am encouraged that even conservatives seem to be coming around. When I hear Newt Gingrich on NPR discussing how private enterprise is going to save us from global warming, I realize that the debate is changing from one of ends into one of means. That, I submit, is a good thing, because I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this issue *is* going to be tackled, even if the politics of how it's done remain contentious. And while I may not want global warming to be true, I definitely want something to be done about it, with a conviction that transcends my politics.

Posted by: Another nonymous | December 4, 2007 11:37 AM

Another nonymous:

I think you are correct that this has become primarily a political issue. And Moderatelad (11:38 AM) has just posted a demonstration of that fact!

D

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 12:00 PM

I have to say that I do, in fact, firmly believe in global warming.

But even if by some bizarre chance, it's not real, or not as much of a problem as it seems...there's still no reason not to act.

All of the measures proposed to counter global warming are good things anyway that we know are going to be good for economies and the planet in the long run.

Why on earth would we gamble with something so huge just because there is a chance the problem might not be as bad as everyone say?

Posted by: sara | December 4, 2007 12:30 PM

Moderatelad, your words give yourself away: Al and Co, Gore groupies, invoking think tanks, etc.

Then you top it off with the epithet "junk science." That happens to be a right-wing slam term used to discredit scientific research. Read Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" for more information.

You have made it a political issue by the way you have framed the debate.

That's why I've kept saying to ignore Al Gore. The evidence is out there without his help.

Another nonymous: I should also mention that nobody I've debated this issue with, who has doubts about GW, has ever bothered to even look at the evidence. And I've debated with many people on and off this blog. That's why I said that those who deny GW is real won't let the evidence get in their way.

Now let's get back to the purpose of this post: GW and its effects on poverty around the world. Let's not debate the reality of GW again! It's all been said before. You can find all the debates on the link at the top of this thread: http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/environment/global_warming/

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 12:42 PM

joekc, you have given some interesting quotes. However, you must remember that anyone can take scientific data and do whatever he/she wants with it. Just because some are turning GW into a religion doesn't mean it's intrinsically religious.

You need to separate the science itself (which tries to be empirical and is by nature not metaphysical) from the uses made of the scientific data (which can be used to support all kinds of metaphysical, political, and religious beliefs). It's not always easy to do, especially when scientists join the metaphysical game (e.g., Richard Dawkins). Just keep in mind that when they do so, they are speaking as humans, all of whom have religious presuppositions of some kind) and not as scientists.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 12:48 PM

Don, with great respect, you advise me to ". . .separate the science itself (which tries to be empirical and is by nature not metaphysical) from the uses made of the scientific data. . .".
What I would ask you to see is that "the science itself" can never be separated from either me, the listener, or the scientist himself, the collector/interpreter of the data. Scientists are not just some kind of "rock-solid, purely objective, perfectly trained persons" who never would allow their own biases to intervene in their interpretations. And most certainly, politicians are not!!! Ann the quotes I gleaned from a book, which had saved me the trouble of gleaning them for myself, seem to me to pretty conclusively demonstrate that men and women of influence, men and women of science, can and do involve their own biases in their interpretations.
There is another reason I know this: I am a trained biochemist who spent his life in Quality Assurance in industry, and I fully recognize that I had to spend the better part of my working life trying to ensure that what I was seeing what not just what I wanted to see!! I do not doubt for a minute that there is empirical evidence of warming available to us, just as in the 1970's there was good evidence of cooling. What I am skeptical of is that the scientist is really any better at keeping biases out of his conclusions, than I am. And the sample quotations I put up there were only intended to show how that can happen to all of us.

Posted by: joekc | December 4, 2007 1:09 PM

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 12:42 PM

I am using Al Gore not in a political sence but because he is the 'enviromental evangelist' for our time. Gore and Co. is not political - if I wanted it to be political I would have said Gore and Party. (LOL)

I believe in creation care and have supported that decades prior to Wallis coming up with the phrase. I have given thousands of dollars to organizations in the preservation of wild-life and wetlands.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 4, 2007 2:08 PM

I have already posted too many times, but I would like to say one other thing. The title of this particular thread, originated by Mr. Wallis, denotes a connection between climate change and poverty. Although some of us (myself included) have gotten pretty far afield from that title, I want to acknowledge that Mr Wallis is always correct, and always valuable to me, when he directs my attention to the poor of the earth. I am a "wealthy American",at least by the standards of much of the world. I own a computer, I use elecricity to run my pump to get me fresh water, I add a blanket or two if I get cold during the night in my queen-sized bed, and so on. So. . . when Mr. Wallis does this, when he 're-directs' my attention to the poor of the earth and God's desire that I should be involved with them, that is a good thing, regardless of whether I agree altogether with all of Mr. Wallis's theses. God bless him for that.

Posted by: joekc | December 4, 2007 2:30 PM

Poverty and Climate Change Are Clearly Linked

But does that also mean that the solution is 'linked'?

I can see there is a connection but that they are linked - like 'hand-in-glove'. I do not see that.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 4, 2007 3:13 PM

Hi Don and Moderatelad,
I don't have too much time to contribute to this thread this time. However, in terms of the 0.17 degrees, it is more like (if I remember correctly--I don't have spare time right now to look it up) 1 degree, and I believe that is in Celsius (so even more in F)--someone verify that for me. That doesn't seem like much, but we already are seeing major changes in weather patterns from that small change. More importantly, however, is the fact that it is an average, and the heating is greater at the poles than elsewhere on Earth, so the effects are greater at the poles.
As for the ice age scare in the 70's, you have to consider the fact that our technology is WAY better now than it was in the 70's--we didn't have the computing power to produce the computer models we can today, for example, not to mention how much more we know about the atmosphere as the result of all those satellites we have in orbit now.
Pretty much all climate scientists agree that the Earth IS warming. That's not what is being debated. The point of contention comes when we say it is caused by humans and humans only. Computer models actually only work when BOTH human and natural causes are figured in. We really don't know how much the Earth would warm without human influence, or how much human influence is exacerbating a problem that is occurring naturally. Most climate scientists see a human contribution, but they are not sure the extent of the contribution.
Even IF it isn't a human cause, however, there are so many pluses to moving away from a fossil fuel economy that even if it turned out to be the scam weather channel guy says it is, it would still be worth doing. For one thing, we would cut down on the oil revenues that find their way into terrorist hands. For another thing, we would have a cleaner environment.
Really, the only objections I have ever heard to doing something about it are economic objections. We do something and our economy will collapse. I don't think it would--innovation and technology spur on our economy, and if new energy sources were encouraged, our economy would only grow. the problem, as I see it, is we would be wresting economic control out of the hands of oil and coal companies (who are very heavily subsidized by the government) and may even result in the possibility of decentralizing energy. Think about it--instead of only two (major) sources of energy, oil or gas, we would have a myriad of sources to choose from, and we would probably also see control going from huge corporations to states, counties, towns, and even individual households, depending on where you live. The economy as a whole need not suffer, but the big companies certainly would, and certainly are threatened by the talk of us doing something about GCC. And that's the issue as I see it. It's an issue of control over energy resources--dependence vs. autonomy. I vote autonomy.
Another reason we wouldn't see economic collapse is that this would not happen over night. It would be gradual, and the market would adjust. On the other hand, if we don't do anythign about it, and war breaks out among OPEC nations disrupting our flow of oil, our economy could collapse overnight. It's not even an issue about global climate change, really--it's an issue about energy security, and that security isn't going to come by continuing this dependance on foreign oil.
But you caught me just as I was getting off my energy spiel soap box I just gave in class today, and I have spent more time here than I intended. So I'm going back to work. As much as I enjoy this conversation when the topic comes up, I am going to have to stay away from here, so if I don't respond anymore, that is why...

Cheers and walnuts

Posted by: squeaky | December 4, 2007 4:48 PM

Thanks Squeaky for saving me from having to contribute - you said just about everything that I would have done.

Apart from this: aid and development agencies in Europe are much more aware of the linkage between climate change and poverty: for the most part, this awareness has arisen from work on the ground in places like Bangladesh or northern Kenya. I assume most people on this blog only speak English, so I limit my reading suggestions to the following:

Christian Aid: http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/climatechange/index.htm [British/Irish church-based aid and development agency]

TearFund:http://www.tearfund.org/Campaigning/Climate+change+and+disasters/ [British evangelical Christian aid and development agency]

New Economics Foundation (nef) reports: several items on the subject at: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/ilifsj554nyi4i45pk2vpk4521112005153939.pdf
More detailed analysis. A series of nef’s reports, under variants of the title “Up in Smoke”, predict the impact of climate change on the developing world. Their publication was sponsored by several of the major development and environmental groups in Britain, including Christian Aid, Tearfund and CAFOD.

Mark

Posted by: mark | December 4, 2007 8:20 PM

Squeaky, I actually think your comments about the economic power struggle get close to the heart of what this post is about. Not only are the poor threatened on many levels by climate change itself, but they have suffered economically by the centralized energy powers. Freeing us from those economic powers would go a long way toward alleviating both possible exacerbation of climate change and the oppression of the poor who are currently under the thumb of the wealthy energy barons--including the Saudis and tyrants like Hugo Chavez.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 10:01 PM

Our society has the resources to protect the poor from the worst of the fallout from the recession that would come from ending our oil dependency. Why don't we try that instead of only prolonging the problem and making it worse?

p

Posted by: payshun | December 5, 2007 12:51 AM

Kevin S says:
Compliance with Kyoto will cost New Zealand about $1 billion.

I don't believe you, Kevin. Please cite a reference.

Meanwhile, major, extensively-researched reports in Britain and Germany have demonstrated that the likely economic effect of climate change is vastly greater than the cost of taking effective mitigation action.

And now in Britain, the CBI - the representative body of big business - is calling for much stronger government action aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. (A few years ago they were saying that everything could be done on a voluntary basis - clearly they have now realised that they were wrong)

In most developed countries, the technology needed for mitigation action is already viable and already close to competitive (and would be even closer were it not for the large government subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries). But it will require some significant changes in, for example, the way that electricity is distributed, or the assumptions made by builders. Given that those changes will have to come anyway sooner or later, why not now?

Mark

Posted by: mark | December 5, 2007 10:57 AM

Peter wrote that "the elements shall melt with
fervent heat." (2 Peter 3:10) A nuclear explosion? Global warming? Who can say? But the earth isn't going to last, anyway. Scripture guarantees it. GW, even if true (and I see no solid evidence that it is anything but a political ploy to lead to increased governmental and particularly global control by the "elite"), is a distraction from the task of winning people to Christ so that they may follow Him onto a new heavens and new earth. (Rev.
21:1) As for the conservative distrust of science, of course -- when for decades "science"
has been telling us that we are the products of
random chance, from "the goo to you by way of the
zoo," in spite of the Bible's clear description of
Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, and in spite of Romans 5:12's clear statement that "by one man's sin death entered the world" -- in other words,
there was no death before Adam's disobedience,
hence no eons of species dying out as other
species took their place. That's why we distrust
"science." And in the current scientific community, anyone who doesn't toe the line, who
dares to support ID or Creationism, or questions
GW, is ostracized. Some have even lost their
jobs over their failure to conform.

Posted by: John G. | December 6, 2007 5:26 PM