Evangelicals Duped by Global Warming?

http://www.acton.org/ ^ | Jay Richards

[truthfinder9]

After much whispering and pre-publicity, a group of 86 evangelical leaders has announced their support for what The New York Times calls “a major initiative to fight global warming.” As part of the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” they are calling for “federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through ‘cost-effective, market-based mechanisms.’” (For a response from another group of evangelical leaders, go to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance.)

I have great respect for the supporters of this initiative, and I don’t doubt their sincerity. And I’m glad to see a call for “market-based” solutions to a problem. Unfortunately, this looks to me like another example (alongside the fuzzy advocacy of the ONE Campaign) of Christians, evangelicals in this case, endorsing a hip cause without thinking through its economic logic.

I doubt any of these evangelical leaders has relevant expertise when it comes to global warming, especially since the scientific issues involved are exquisitely complex and change from day to day. So presumably they are simply trusting the advertised “scientific consensus” on this issue and using that perceived consensus as a filter for interpreting mundane events, like ice melting in Antarctica. That’s a problem, not only because the consensus is more manufactured than real (that is, objectively decided), but also because a scientific consensus that the planet is warming still wouldn’t tell us what to do about it. That’s a prudential question that can only be answered by taking account not only of the intended consequences of a policy, but also its unintended consequences.

The issue is not whether we should see ourselves as stewards over creation. That’s a non-negotiable Christian principle. The issue is whether these evangelicals have done the obligatory serious thinking before advocating a specific public policy.

When it comes to global warming, there are at least four separate issues to keep in mind. You don’t need to be a climate expert to do this.

(1) Is the planet warming?

(2) If the planet is warming, is human activity (like CO2 emissions) causing it?

(3) If the planet is warming, and we’re causing it, is it bad overall?

(4) If the planet is warming, we’re causing it, and it’s bad, would the policies commonly advocated (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol, restrictions on CO2 emissions) make any difference? If I had to guess based on current evidence, to question (1) I would answer: “Probably.” That is, we’re probably in the middle of a slight warming trend. So in a trivial sense, the climate is “changing.” I say this is trivial, because we know from natural “data recorders” like ice cores that historically, Earth’s climate is always changing. In fact, the last several thousand years, corresponding to recorded human history, have been uncharacteristically mild.

What about (2)? Are CO2 emissions causing this warming? Notice that the question isn’t whether CO2 is a green house gas. That’s uncontroversial. The question is whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 from human activity is causing warming, or whether one of the many natural feedback mechanisms is mitigating its effects? For example, in some cases, increase in CO2 leads to more plant growth, which in turn sequesters CO2. This is one of many examples of a natural feedback process that makes long range climate prediction unimaginably difficult. So at the moment, in answer to (2), I would say: “We don’t know.”

What about (3)? Is it obvious that global warming would be bad, overall? No, it’s not. It might be a net gain. In fact, it’s possible that human CO2 emissions could be preventing an overdue ice age, as Guillermo Gonzalez and I mention briefly in The Privileged Planet.

More specifically, is it obvious that the world’s poor would be worse off, overall, than they would be if the global climate stayed exactly the same? No, it’s not obvious.

Finally, what about (4)? Is it obvious that a reduction in American CO2 emissions, for example, would make much difference? No, it’s not obvious. And is it obvious, as this evangelical statement implies, that a call for restrictions on CO2 emissions would benefit the poor? No, it’s not.

Here, then, is the problem with the statement by this group of evangelical leaders. It treats the answers to these four questions as obviously “yes.” And it’s only on that baseless assumption that the statement can connect our responsibility as stewards with a specific policy position.

My point here is not to make any decisive pronouncements on global warming, or its more recent, and more vacuous substitute, “climate change.” My point is, rather, to plead with evangelical leaders not to do so, and not to pretend that they know more than they can possibly know. That’s especially true when it comes to the media-hyped global warming bandwagon, of which these evangelical leaders have now, unwittingly, become a part.

[jecIIny]

This is one of the few areas (the other being fiscal responsibility) that I have a disagreement with the president on. I strongly support these persons of faith for their stand. Although there have been a lot of efforts to debunk global warming, the evidence is fairly compelling on this subject. At present there is an overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus in the scientific community on parts of the global warming issue. As you noted this is an extremely complex subject and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of posts on FR. But to address your questions point by point...

1. Yes it is. But its also fair to note the Earth’s temperature has fluctuated over billions of years. But those climatic changes have generally been much slower. In geological terms the recent warming is occurring at a remarkable speed.

2. Qualified yes. Humans are not the sole source of the problem. But we are a major contributing factor. Very few respected members of the scientific community question this. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from groups who have ties to various business interests.

3. Yes. In general the consequences of global warming are potentially very serious. They range from increased risks of certain types of cancers (especially skin) to the degradation of certain environmental ecosystems and melting of the polar ice caps, to just name a few.

4. This is controversial. There is a serious diversity of opinion in the scientific community on the best course of action. Few are arguing for no action. But what should be done is a hot topic of debate. There seems to be a grudging (especially among the more liberal members) acknowledgment that Kyoto would have done very little. This then raises some important questions on what should be done. Do we need to go farther? Do we just sit back and say it’s too inconvenient to deal with? If we want to take extreme measures how do we get other countries to comply? My own view is that while discussion is good and should continue along with research, its time to start taking some measures. Even if we are not completely certain how effective they will be, I believe inaction is no longer an option.

[VOA]

Well, the National Association of Evangelicals aren't a part of this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570114/posts

Looks like the envirowackos managed to peal off a few of the evanglical
leaders to their group.
Probably promised them lots of trips to lots of conferences in
lots of cool places around the globe.

Flying in planes burning TONS of fossil fuels, thus emitting great
gobs of particulates and greenhouse gases.

[VOA]

here's to synergy on related threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574564/posts

[Cognoscenti247]

1. Yes the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century according to the UN's IPCC and G8 countries.

2. There is no conclusive link between Global warming and Anthropogenic Global warming. This is not to say humans aren't increasing greenhouse gas totals but rather that there is no tenable link between the two theories.

3. It is absurd to say that a warming trend is necessarily bad because anyone who claims they understand a 4 billion year old ecosystem and its innate complexities with a couple hundred years of data is insane.

4. In places where they have ratified the Kyoto protocol the nations have for the most part missed their target marks by substantial margins. Besides, a measure to this end in America would only lead to the destruction of our economy.

BTW, the availability of funds to prove Anthropogenic Global warming dwarfs the amount available for disproving the theory.

[VOA]

link to an article on the topic...names prominent supporters of
the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the major evangelicals
that haven't signed on:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/106/34.0.html

[Rakkasan1]

the world is going to hell in an Escalade.

[ardara]

If global warming is so bad,why do so many people go south every winter?

[Ford4000]

I'm afraid that by endorsing this agenda Rick Warren has jumped the shark. I hate to see highly talented people of any profession making fools of themselves by expounding about things outside their area of expertise.

[MortMan]

2. ... Very few respected members of the scientific community question this. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from groups who have ties to various business interests.

Ah, yes... The old canard of false consensus, coupled with the ad hominem link to business interests.

There is one heck of a lot of money being spent on trying to prove global warming - which means that those scientists who agree with the theory have a lot of personal gain at stake if the theory is disproven. That is a more compelling argument than the nefarious business interests links you cite, IMO.

[Rakkasan1]

good question.

I guess they've solved the abortion crisis. after all, why work on fixing a fixable problem when you can opine about fixing a problem that may not exist.( and if it does, probably can't be solved by humans or evangelicals)

we're not going to hell in a handbasket---we're all going to hell in an Escalade.

[Always Right]

2. Qualified yes. Humans are not the sole source of the problem. But we are a major contributing factor. Very few respected members of the scientific community question this. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from groups who have ties to various business interests.

It is taboo to reject this. Certainly you can cast some doubt because some of the naysayers because they are pro-business. But you must also point out that the scientific community rejects anyone who dares cast doubt on the human-component of global warming. The scientific community over-states the human-component because of this group-think mentality. Legitimate decent is not allowed.

[tutstar]

What say Baptists?

I heard about this on the radio. Rick Warren is reported to be one of the endorsing evangelicals.

[JamesP81]

I have yet to see any study on Global Warming that absolutely convinced me that humans are the biggest part of it.

When Mount St. Helens had its minor eruptions last year, it expelled more sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks than the entire industrial base of the entire State of Washington does in several years. And it's not the only active volcano on the Earth. Human civilization is probably responsible for 1% or less of the greenhouse gas emissions. The planet emits more greenhouse gas than we ever could.

Another one I like is this hole in the ozone layer over antartica. It's true, there is a hole there and it does change size periodically. What I learned from one of my friends, who has a B.S. in Chemistry and is going for PhD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is that ozone is formed by a chemical reaction that occurs in the presence of UV radiation. Now do you see the problem? Of course there's sometimes a hole in the ozone layer over antartica: it's dark for 6 months out the year.

Another interesting note: trees produce the most oxygen when they put on wood. So really the best way to maximize oxygen production is to chop all the old growth trees down and plant saplings.

Saw an article on FR a few weeks back (don't have a handy link) that showed that astronomers found that the sun is burning hotter now than it has in a very long time. Imagine that? The planet's warmer because the sun got hotter.

It's things like this that cause the sky-is-falling global warming crowd to have minimal credibility with me. It's true: the planet's warming up. I suspect, however, that it's largely due to natural processes that we can't do anything about anyway. Furthermore, anyone who has studied geology and climate knows that the Earth's climate is not a constant thing at all.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Well, what I say is, oh well!!!! I disagree with them. But really they have every right to express their point in any way they want to, even if that means their faith is their reason for their position. I really believe in that principle of free expression, including religious expression -- so whatever. They aren't scientists. So they've been duped. But I haven't any problem with their reasoning other than that.

[DocRock]

"What say Baptists? "

Hogwash...

[Blogger]

We don't follow Rick Warren, and Global Warming is a farce. Shame on them.

[Sensei Ern]

Rick Warren is reported to be one of the endorsing evangelicals.

Which Bible version is Rick Warren reading that in? Just because he leads 10,000 people in worship does not make him an expert on environmental issues.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Excellent reality check site on who's still really 'evangelical' these days...

Hot Air from Evangelicals Needs to Be Stopped

[VOA]

bump for publicity