Journal entry on readings associated with the Fall, An Inconvenient Truth

  1. The thrust of the article by B. Lomborg is that, via cost-benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to devote funds to ending hunger, curing disease, and providing clean water and education throughout the world. (Of course, this analysis relies on the premise that we can do little to curb global warming anyway.) What if his argument won out? What do you think would happen? And, What do you think of his statement that we cannot address the problems he mentions and global warming at the same time?
  2. One complaint raised about “An Inconvenient Truth”, voiced even by people who are fundamentally behind movements to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, is that Gore consistently presents worst-case scenarios. Scientists tend to speak in probabilities, giving best, middle and worst-case scenarios. When asked about this at a screening of the film, Gore is recorded (click for the article) to have said, “Science thrives on uncertainty. (But,) politics is paralyzed by uncertainty.” Comment on what he means by this. Do you think the need for quick action trumps any calls to wait until the science is more certain about the actual effects of global warming?
  3. Scientists working in climatology are supposed to be experts. For we who are not experts, it is tempting, especially when we have particular leanings on a divisive issue, to find experts that provide a justification for our positions, and then stand immovably on the foundations they provide, all the while looking for hidden agendas on the part of anyone who questions our positions. What types of sin can you find in this type of behavior? Is it necessary to keep an open mind so as to avoid these sins? How do you behave while your mind remains open?
  4. The Statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, signed by President Gaylen Byker along with many other American evangelical Christian leaders, offers what it calls a “moral argument related to the matter of human-induced climate change.” Is global warming a moral issue? Are we each morally involved by what we do (the CO2 we produce) and how we choose to act on our knowledge of the negative consequences of our actions? How is the moral equation changed when it is the collective actions en masse rather than of one person that has consequences? How about when there is so much uncertainty about which actions cause which effects?
  5. Gore claims that he experienced some frustration in bringing the issue of global warming before congress because politicians tend to care only about the issues their constituents care about. If global warming was not on the radar screen of their constituencies, politicians weren't going to deal with it. If true, what does this say about the limits or drawbacks of our democracy as a form of popular representation? For important issues, does the burden lie with politicians to educate and motivate their constituencies, or must it be a citizen movement motivating politicians? Would you say “An Inconvenient Truth” is primarily trying to bring about the latter? Or is it focused more upon changing our personal behaviors that contribute to greenhouse gases?

Last Modified: