By Jay D. Homnick on 4.1.08 @ 12:07AM
Time for a controlling cooling authority.
Global warming is heating right back up, with ex-Senator,
ex-Vice President, ex-Presidential candidate, best-selling author,
Oscar winner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and all-around creep Al
Gore Jr. announcing some new initiative that will cost a
mere $300 million. Some kind of education thingie to increase
awareness and sensitize the hitherto clueless to the profound
challenge that faces our civilization in this darkest hour of
crisis. Or something.
This sort of project has a new name, which I feel a profound
obligation to promulgate in the culture. It is a "public advocacy
campaign." No great skills of augury are required to offer the
prediction that these will soon be "acronymized" as PAD. What a
wonderful opportunity to PAD the numbers, PAD the facts, PAD the
truth and, ultimately, PAD the pockets. When I consider that I have
not put up a single one of those three hundred million simoleons (I
hope), a shiver runs down my spine. Is it guilt? Nah. More like
dread of the there-but-for-the-grace-of-common-sense-go-I
variety.
It used to be that we could hide behind the Velvet Curtain, i.e.
the religious-secular divide. We could say, with the late, G.K.
Chesterton, that one of the redemptive features of faith in the
Creator is that we are freed of the primal tug to believe all sorts
of arrant nonsense. Those who do not believe in God, said
Chesterton, do not believe in nothing, they believe in everything.
The late Rabbi Jacob Kanievsky (1899-1985), one of the great Jewish
scholars of the recent era, used to marvel at the fact that
brilliant scientific thinkers who rejected religion always seemed
to have a troll hanging for luck from their rearview mirrors.
So it was with global warming, until recently. The intellectual
formula that gave us solace was simple. People who do not believe
in a Creator are living in a world defined entirely by chance. As
easily as it emerged in randomness, it could disintegrate into
chaos. Their lives are fragile tendrils clinging for support to the
slender reed of a world governed by habit rather than purpose. They
are only too easily gulled by the soothsayers, the naysayers, the
doomsayers. Although they scorn our mercy, they are more to be
pitied than to be censured.
NOW, SADLY, THIS formula has broken down, as major religious
figures have succumbed to the propaganda. From the Catholic Church
to Pat Robertson, the clergy has taken of late to haranguing us for
hastening the demise of the planet with our excess. As the drumbeat
grows louder, it apparently becomes more difficult for good sense
to prevail.
Let me offer here two brief arguments, one from faith, one from
science. From faith I would maintain that man must be humble in
stewarding individual offshoots of nature, the things provided for
his comfort. In this spirit, Jews do not chop down fruit trees,
they do not spay animals, and they frown upon hunting for sport;
all restrictions that accept a higher moral commitment to the
integrity and productivity of fellow creatures. Yet that same
humility should translate itself into an awareness that nothing man
can do will truly destroy the world. The scale of global reality
dwarfs our minuscule effect.
It is a spiritually absurd idea to think that the world will end
one minute before God is ready for it to be shut down. Or,
conversely, that we could extend its lifespan an instant beyond
that appointed time. As long as mankind is engaged in the
enterprise of bringing the Divine vision for this planet into
fruition, there will be no oops moment of auto-incineration.
The argument from science goes in another direction. All the
disciplines of physical science are in agreement that in human
terms, this planet is billions of years old. Even most religious
people understand that although the history of mankind begins 5768
years ago with the advent of Adam, there is no reason to refute the
notion that the cumulative processes leading up to that point could
well pass through stages that would represent billions of years if
codified mathematically. (Since God is above time, all of history
is simultaneous to Him, so the actual numbers and the experience of
waiting for things to develop is relevant only to humans.)
Bottom line, this planet has endured billions of years by
mathematical and scientific measurement. In that amount of time,
the degrees of permutation in temperature and infinite other
chemical variables is some mind-bendingly huge number. If this
planet has survived every possible heating, cooling, burning,
icing, watering, steaming, gassing and drying that billions of
years in this solar system have produced, the thought that a bunch
of humans driving trucks for a hundred years could destroy the
system is profoundly, you should forgive the expression,
unscientific.
topics:
Education, Religion, Global Warming, NATO