Mensch tracht, un Gott lacht

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Desperately Trying to be Relevant: Evangelicals and Global, Ummm, Warming

I don't know a lot about blog etiquette, but I know what I like and so I'm reproducing this entire post from The Evangelical Outpost's Joe Carter:

Let’s Melt the Ice Cap:Evangelicals, Scientific Consensus, and Global Warming

A group of more than 85 influential evangelical leaders has released a statement, the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), expressing a “biblically driven commitment to curb global warming” and calling on the government to “enact national legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that are contributing to global climate change.”

The group's manifesto, "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call for Action", includes a FAQ explaining the urgency of the issue. “Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change,” notes the website. “Why? Climate change will make natural disasters like floods, droughts, and hurricanes more damaging.” The site also notes that “few are in denial about the reality of the problem, a scientific consensus that climate change must be addressed has actually existed since 1995.”

Is there a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring? An article in Newsweek appears to provide strong evidence for that claim:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth….

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

This article would appear to shore up the ECI’s claim that “Climate change, also called global warming, is an urgent problem that can and must be solved.” Except that the article is titled “The Cooling World” and is dated April 28, 1975 during a time when the scientific consensus held that climate change, known back then as global cooling, was leading to a new Ice Age.

After a long history of eschatological predictions that that fail to come to fruition, you’d think that evangelicals would be more skeptical of doomsday scenarios. But like most people, we tend to have short memories and forget that what was once considered “scientific consensus” (global cooling will lead to environmental disaster) and “conventional wisdom” (the population explosion will lead to global famine) isn't always gospel truth.

We also tend to suffer from “chronological snobbery”, the presumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited, and are prone to believe that since global warming is the consensus in 2006 that it is more likely to be true than the 1975 consensus that global warming was occurring. But if we were wrong in 1975 then perhaps we should be careful of assuming that we are warranted in believing that we are right just because the calendar says it is 2006.

We might also have justification for being skeptical of the idea of “consensus science.” In an intriguing lecture at Caltech titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming” , author Michael Crichton has some harsh words for the oxymoronic concept:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

A counterargument that is often presented is that since it is possible that global warming is occurring we are better off taking action now than waiting for confirmation that we are correct. Some people have the attitude of the BR-549 song that “Sometimes I gotta' do somethin' even if it's wrong.”

But what we had followed the proposals offered in the late 1970’s to counter global cooling? What if we had followed what Newsweek refers to as the “more spectacular solutions proposed” of melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers? These former solutions are now considered some of the dire consequences of our planet overheating.

But even the less far-fetched proposals can have a devastating impact. For example, there was much hand-ringing over the U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol even though it would have cost $150 billion annually and have only delayed the warming expected in 2100 by six years. For half that cost, notes Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, we could provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and basic health care and education for every person in the world.

Almost all policy proposals offered to counter global warming would impede economic growth. The ECI warns that “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change.” But millions of people are already dying every year because of the greatest cause of environmental disaster on the planet: poverty. As Lomborg explains in the latest issue of The Wilson Quarterly:

The single most important environmental problem in the world today is indoor air pollution, caused by poor people cooking and heating their homes with dung and cardboard. The UN estimates that such pollutions causes 2.8 million deaths annually—about the same as HIV/AIDS. The solution, however is not environmental measures but economic changes that let these people get rich enough to afford kerosene.

While Bob Geldof is sponsoring global concerts that “raise awareness”, you won’t find too many celebrities raising money to end “indoor air pollution.” Handing out kerosene simply doesn’t have the same hip cache as handing out condoms. Even if it kills more people than HIV/AIDS, it will never be the issue du jour of the rich and famous.

That is why it is imperative that the evangelical community stand in the gap. Instead of keeping our car's engine tuned as a way to fight global warming, we need to keep our attention tuned to the realities of our fellow man. Global warming may be the pressing environmental problem in 2106, but in 2006 the urgent ecological concern is poverty.

19 comments:

Hunter Baker said...

All I know is that it is just darn good to see you standing with the church for once.

James F. Elliott said...

Except that science has an incredibly record of increasing accuracy that utterly dwarfs any other field of human endeavor.

This is a darn good point. There's computer modeling technology today that would have looked like something out of science fiction to a scientist in 1975.

Just recently, scientists in the UK found that there is a saturation point for CO2 absorbtion in non-crop plants. That is to say, if you want to create reliable CO2-sinks, rainforests can do only so much. Large, self-renewing crops such as corn are required in massive quantities to deal with the amounts of CO2 we are pumping into the air.

A team of English and Russian scientists discovered two very interesting things: Siberia is thawing and releasing tons of methane gas into the atmosphere and methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Today, in the middle of February, I am wearing a short-sleeve shirt to work because it is damn warm. This is odd, even for California. Scientists estimate that by 2030, rainfall in California will be at 50% of what it is today. This will devastate the US agricultural economy. The US Navy has been monitoring the thickness of the polar ice caps since the 1950s - they have found them to be thinning drastically.

But don't worry. There's no such thing as global warming.

Barry Vanhoff said...

But don't worry. There's no such thing as global warming.

Let us try a more civilized approach, shall we?

By global warming do you mean that there has been an upward trend in mean surface temperatures over the past 50 years?

If yes, then I don't think there's an argument here ... at all ... we're in perfect agreement

By global warming do you mean that the presence of man on the planet (more specifically, man's release of C02 into the atmosphere ... and not just any C02, but C02 that was trapped beneath the surface of the earth) has been a factor in the recent rise in surface temperatures?

If yes, then again, probably not a lot of disagreement here ... maybe some.

(this space intentionally left blank)

By global warming, are you suggesting that man is the primary cause of the increase in surface temperatures over the past 50 years?

Now THAT, my dear friend, is a debatable subject, and science is not on your side.

By global warming, do you mean that if we stop all burning of "fossil fuels" the planet will stop warming? If you do, then science is not on your side.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The real question is whether Jesus said, "Go forth and wreck your nation's economy, based on theories that probably are, but not assuredly true."

I can see these evangelicals getting worked up about global warming as private citizens, but speaking on it under the umbrella of Christianity seems improper.

Besides, if God takes care of the little sparrows and the lillies of the field, surely He can let us discover a way use pure, clean, non-polluting nuclear fusion to power our civilization any time He wants to. Better they should pray for something like that than preach.

Matt Huisman said...

James>> This is a darn good point. There's computer modeling technology today that would have looked like something out of science fiction to a scientist in 1975.

That reminds me of the scene from Superman where the supercomputer tells all of the Kryptonians (or would it be Kryptonites?) not to worry, everything is fine - and then blasts off because it knows the place is doomed.

I started thinking about all of the global warming calculations Tlaloc's Altair 8800 was doing, and was getting a little nervous. But then I remembered that the Altair's didn't start shipping with rocket thrusters until the early 80's.

Whew. Always a good idea to make sure that your techno-gadgets are in it for the long haul.

James F. Elliott said...


Let us try a more civilized approach, shall we?


If that was uncivilized, I shudder to think about what you might call uncouth. Something like, "Liar, liar, pants on fire?"

James F. Elliott said...

"There is a consensus that the theory of evolution accurately explains the origin of all species on the planet." This statement is meant to shut down any discussion on evolution, though no poll has ever shown that 98%-100% of people, scientists, biologists, or any other significantly large group believe this (except maybe evolutionary biologists?).

Not to flog a dead horse but to flog a dead horse, but polls indicates something like 99% of scientists agree with evolution. It's an example of the non-expert feeling like he or she can disagree with the expert. I'm not about to tell an architect or even a carpenter how to build a house, since I know just enough about building one to be dangerous. It's the same thing with things like the global warming and evolution "debates." What is it about these particular subjects that makes people feel like you can argue with the experts just because you don't like what you here?

To borrow a phrase from the best show on television: It's fracking ridiculous.

James F. Elliott said...

I started thinking about all of the global warming calculations Tlaloc's Altair 8800 was doing, and was getting a little nervous. But then I remembered that the Altair's didn't start shipping with rocket thrusters until the early 80's.

I like you. You get to live when the revolution comes.

Barry Vanhoff said...

TVD: The real question is whether Jesus said, "Go forth and wreck your nation's economy, based on theories that probably are, but not assuredly true."

Thanks for returning the debate to where it started.

Tlaloc: Well according to Christianity God gave us the earth as a gift. Maybe they just think we should treat God's gifts with a tad more respect.

While I tend to think that you're using sarcasm here, you're probably right on when you say, tad.

IMHO, there is a fine line between conservation as a virtue and conservation as a form of worship.

We are to adore out creator and not the creation.

Further, the NT clearly states:
“ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:37-40)

Notice the order.

Part I is between God and us, and sadly us Christians are probably incapable of the kind of love God requires of us. However, if we are good at part I, part II comes naturally.

Thus, my initial reaction to a group of Ev's making a statement like the above is that it is OK, as long as it does not detract from God's command to love him and put him above all things.

Matt Huisman said...

I like you. You get to live when the revolution comes.

Thanks, James. I've been networking a bit more lately in the event something like that happens - you know, contigency planning. I figure your protection saves me the trouble of sucking up to at least a dozen left coast liberation movements.

I'd offer to return the favor (revolutions can come from more than one direction), but those decisions are all made at HQ - I will put in good word for you though.

Matt Huisman said...

Just thinking about our confidence in global warming science a little - it sounds like we're still about a century out on the total destruction scenario - at what point do we really freak out and start threatening (boycotts, blockades, invasions) countries who don't participate in Kyoto-esque conventions?

Right now I think people are (reasonably) a little shaky on the cost-benefit ratio of the whole thing. Has anyone ever put together any thoughts on when a point of no return might be (or might look like)? You know, something where the world can look at itself in the mirror and say, 'Man, did I let myself go.'

James F. Elliott said...

I'd offer to return the favor (revolutions can come from more than one direction), but those decisions are all made at HQ - I will put in good word for you though.

I appreciate it. My one hope is that the "reeducation camps" actually mean just that. Otherwise it's up into the Sierras with my looted Big 5 gun collection, the wife, and the dog I go!

James F. Elliott said...

"It seems strange and almost arrogant to me to believe that somehow man's contributions would be the ones to finish it off."

I think Robin Williams and George Carlin put it best. It's colossal arrogance to think that the earth and the ecosystem won't survive our presence. They're far too robust for that. We might be disease-ridden fleas, but we are fleas nonetheless, and can be shaken off. The real question of the "debate" is whether or not we can survive. We could nuke the place to hell and gone, and Mother Nature would still be there, peeking out from under the rocks and asking, "Can I come out now?"

Barry Vanhoff said...

I just said take care of it as it was God's gift to us (according to that faith).

I'm with you 100% on that.

However, those entities pushing for Kyoto (for example) have no proof that the world will be a better place after having implemented it.

While accepting the science (ie, observations about the past and present) is not based on faith, accepting the predictions about the future is.

Yes, comupter models of climate are better because we have better measurement systems in place (I know that directly), but I am not convinced that they are able to predict long term climate change.

Using uncertain predictions (remember, we are in unprecedented times) to put forth even more uncertain policy changes seems short sighted.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Using uncertain predictions (remember, we are in unprecedented times) to put forth even more uncertain policy changes seems short sighted.


Yes, and I am even more uncertain of how appropriate it is to use the cover of the church to push those policy changes.

(My uncertainties are expanding geometrically.)

The Biblical support for Kyoto is rather sketchy. In fact there's a lot more in there about Providence. I found "be fruitful and multiply" but not "blessed are exchangeable pollution credits."

Timothy Birdnow said...

``In the World you have trouble but take heart; I have overcome the World``

John16:33

An Evangelical Christian has a duty to work to save our good, and work within the political system, but to believe that MAN can destroy the Earth is to believe that God is not in charge. Evangelicals believe the inerrency and completeness of the Bible. If they have to fight Global Warming, they are not putting their faith in Jesus. JESUS is the savior, not treaties and governments. This is a failure of faith to an Evangelical.

The fact is, Global Warming is caused by an increase in solar radiation. The Earth has been warming since the 18th century, when the mini-Ice age ended. This coincided with the end of the Maunder Minimum, which was a period of reduced solar output. During the preceeding period we had a warm sun, and it was actually a couple of degrees warmer than it is now. Wine grapes grew in Britain, Olives in Germany. (If you don`t believe me, ask Tom Bethel.)

Oceanic temperature measurements suggest the Earth is warming, while satellite data actually suggests a slight cooling. What explains this disparity? If sunlight is driving the warming trend, we would expect the oceans to heat first (since they are highly massive and catch sunlight) while the air should let more heat go. If CO2 emissions are the culprit, one would expect the reverse. The data strongly suggests increased stellar activity. The increase in sunspot activity with each new cycle backs this interpretation up.

Let`s close the deal; Mars is warming. Unless Bush has Haliburton sneaking to Mars with greenhouse gases, we have to conclude that the Sun is responsible.

If Evangelicals want to fight Global Warming, they want to fight the Will of the Lord.

Oh, and tlaloc, the weather predictions are STILL wrong at least 50% of the time!

Timothy Birdnow said...

Here is a petition signed by scientists who opposed the hot air that is Kyoto.

Timothy Birdnow said...

Tlaloc, you said,

I wonder why God bothered to give us eyes at all when he will so consistently remove any wall we choose to run at...

First off, is this a wall at all? If GOD is the cause, then we are rebelling against His will. Did it ever occur to you that a modicum of warming may be to our benefit? Perhaps God is trying to expand the habitable and arable land on the Earth?

Often, fiddling with something makes it worse.

You also said,

"The fact is, Global Warming is caused by an increase in solar radiation."

As above it doesn't matter. Do you turn off the heater or don't you?


Uh, yes it DOES matter; these are normal solar cycles, and we will eventually begin a cooling pattern (in fact, we may have already entered one.) You propose we destroy our economy over something completely unnecessary.

By the way, I run my refrigerator in wintertime, and I suspect you do as well.

"Oh, and tlaloc, the weather predictions are STILL wrong at least 50% of the time!"

No not really. They do have a certain margin of error because the local weather pattern is far more chaotic than the system as a whole.

for instance look at this study:
http://www.customweather.com/accuracy/2003study.html

between 55 and 60% of all forecasts predicted the temperature three days out to within THREE degrees of the actual.


First, you obviously don`t live in St. Louis. Second, you are crowing about a 55% prediction rate that falls within a 3 degree margin for error. O.k., I was wrong; it`s not 50% of the time, it`s 45% of the time! Would you fly on a plane with a 45% failure rate?

I was talking about corporate created pseudo-science groups earlier that try to muddy the water. This is a perfect example.

Tlaloc, Tlaloc, you disappoint me! Here is Singer`s biography:
http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/biosfs.html

This is an old, worn out trick from the `60`s; Saul Alinski, in his book ``Rules for Radicals`` advocated this. When the facts are against you, attack the motives of your opponenets. Singer has impeccable credentials, as do all of the signitories of that petition. You choose to ignore that because his group receives corporate sponsorship.

Well, those who you would put forward receive governmental largesse, and the well will run dry if they stop making predictions of doom. Academic funding is based on the squeeky-wheel; he who makes the most noise gets the most funding. So, we are supposed to suspend our disbelief where governmental financing is concerned, while we are supposed to be critical where private funding comes into play?

Oh, how much private funding are your Global Warming friends receiving, by the way? How much money is coming from Greenpeace, from the Sierra club? Hmmm?

I`ve noticed that you have never mentioned exactly how much warming we are talking about. We are talking about a one degree rise in 100 years. That is one, o-n-e, 1, in a century. You believe we should institute an international, draconian policy over one whole degree rise.

The fact is, every human activity affects the environment, and it is the perfect tool to bludgeon capitalism with. Those who believe in one world government, in socialism, in control of individuals, have flocked into the movement, and Global Warming is their ultimate weapon. I, for one, am unwilling to be buffaloed into surrendering our national wealth, or freedom, and our heritage to this farce.

James F. Elliott said...

I, for one, am unwilling to be buffaloed into surrendering our national wealth, or freedom, and our heritage to this farce.

Histrionic much?

We'll sacrifice our wealth... our freedom, and our heritage? Where do you even get that. Where's all that faith in human ingenuity y'all use to shrug off global warming and the finiteness (Is that even a word? It is now!) of natural resources?

Yes, signing Kyoto means American industry will crumble! We will fall under the jackbooted heel of... WTO bureaucrats?.. well, someone. And our very identity as a people will become as nothing as we are barcoded and turned into supranationalist automatons.

Or something.

Soylent Green is people!