John Safford Responds To Question On Global Warming In A Very Unusual Way

I have to admit that I have been rather busy lately John but I don’t remember seeing your question on Global Warming before this post. My problem with being questioned about Global Warming is when asked that question I get a sort of deer in the headlight look that is similar to when I am asked if I believe in Hell. The reason is that, like the belief in Hell is based on the philosophy of the Bible (and some pagan religions) the philosophy of Global Warming is based on the Tragedy of the Commons, which is an article written by Garrett Hardin, an ecologist, in 1968. The question for me is not whether the earth is getting warmer by why. According to the followers of Hardin human greed is the cause. The question then becomes what to do about it and this is where the Bible and the Doctrine of Global Warming separate. The Bible advocates for self-discipline and calls on the better angels of our nature to solve it , while the Doctrine of the Commons advocates for Government regulation of the “sinners” (basically those greedy bastards who take more than their fair share). The problem is that the Doctrine of the Commons has not proved out scientifically because unmitigated greed seems not to be the overriding nature of humankind but is mysteriously mitigated by strange unscientific observations of such things as the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

Here is an interesting obituary from the New York TImes of Mr. Hardin Obituary From New York TImes

3 thoughts on “John Safford Responds To Question On Global Warming In A Very Unusual Way”

  1. The Tragedy of the Commons paradigm seeks to explain the dynamics of societal actions whereby the rational actions of individuals negatively affect the common good. It accurately describes the societal dynamic that makes it difficult to act collectively to redress a common problem such as climate change, poverty, crime, etc. That is where government comes in, which in theory should mitigate individual actions in favor of benefit to society as a whole. All that is separate from the substantive science of climate change, and it’s strange that someone would conflate these two things. Signs of a confused perspective. Ben Carson anyone?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s