In case the development somehow escaped you, climate convenience has recently, prominently returned to the news. “Climate convenience?” Have you not heard of such?
My apologies; allow me to clarify. What we now call “climate change” was once called “global warming.” When society didn’t logically connect colder winter temperatures to the Earth’s supposed “warming,” the term was altered from “global warming” to “global climate disruption” to the now politically correct “climate change.” Hence, the Intramuralist has arbitrarily decided to shorten “global warming/disruption/climate change/currently-most-convenient-name-to-call-it” to “climate convenience.” (If I was in a more playful mood, I might suggest supporting scientists adopt the “a-b-c” tropical storm naming system; that way, they could have the names poll-tested ahead of time… lest I digress…)
With the west’s wildfires and midwest’s heatwave — along with home and electricity loss, which tend to garner a bit more passionate attention — climate convenience advocates have utilized a seemingly more emboldened voice…
“Look out the window right now, and I think you can see climate change in action.”
“What we’re seeing here really is a window into what global climate change looks like. It looks like heat; it looks like fires; it looks like this kind of environmental disaster.”
“Hard to believe that some still want to deny this.”
Now lest you believe the Intramuralist toes any partisan bent, allow me to state primary points previously penned:
- Experts disagree on whether or not the Earth’s temperature is rising.
- Many stand to profit by promoting their perspective. And…
- Those on both sides of the debate have often spent more time criticizing opposing voices than objectively pursuing the truth.
So friends, allow me to be a voice of objectivity. Note: I am not a scientist. But then again, most of those who boast a passionate opinion are also not scientists; too many of us simply adopt the opinion of the likeminded. The Intramuralist believes such is a faulty and potentially foolish approach. Hence, here is the challenge with climate convenience:
Most science omits any acknowledgement of God.
Now prior to prompting any blood pressure to boil, hang with me for a moment. The Intramuralist made this comment elsewhere recently and was immediately trampled upon for perceived foolishness. One man argued that it’s incomprehensible that “scientists are asked to accommodate the language preferences of religious folk.” That man did not comprehend the point.
I am not suggesting that climate convenience is true. I am also not assuming that climate convenience is false. My goal is an objective pursuit of the truth.
In order to objectively pursue truth, we — and the scientists — need to ask if the presence of God has anything to do with the data recorded. We need to ask if a divine power has any potential role in ecological changes. Fascinatingly, students of historical scripture are aware of the countless environmental consequences based on the behavior of mankind. Thus, my concern is whether as a culture we are humble enough, wise enough, and submissive enough to ask the question: what could God have to do with it?
That’s hard for us. As long as we omit any acknowledgement of God we can continue to assign blame wherever expedient without examining individual or national behavior. We can continue to criticize opposing voices and assume we know truth. We can also continue to simply yet passionately adopt the opinion of the likeminded.
We would be wiser to be humble and submissive… being good stewards of the planet… in objective pursuit of the truth.
Respectfully,
AR