Subscribe to Posts
the curious case of the evangelical response to Y2K and climate change
Nine years ago today we were all breathing a sigh of relief about the Y2K disaster that didn’t materialize. Evangelicals more than most. Because for some reason many evangelicals and fundamentalists bought the idea that the world was headed for a techno-cataclysm. Why would we be so alarmed by Y2K and so apathetic about the environmental crisis we are facing, including climate change?
In the months leading up to Y2K many lobbied me to mobilize the church to prepare for the coming Y2K disaster. Some were storing bulbar wheat in their basements. One guy purchased a handgun in the event law and order broke down. I asked a friend who ran his own computer business what he thought about it all and he said, “Oh, I think it’s going to be fine. A lot of people have been working very hard to fix things. There will be minimal disruptions, if any.” I didn’t mobilize the church. I disappointed a lot of people who thought I was a disaster-pooper.
But climate change is so much chicken-littlin’
Compare this to the American evangelical response to the global environmental crisis–including the energy crisis, water crisis (a billion people without drinkable water) and climate change. Ho-hum. So much chicken littling, that’s what it is, according to many evangelicals. Go to any post in this blog on the environment, you’ll see it in the comments.
Why? It could be that evangelicals are more scientifically astute than most and therefore able to critique the scientific consensus effectively. None of the survey data suggests that this is so, but when did the data convince anybody?
It could be the Spirit has given us the inside scoop: the scientists who think we have a problem are all mistaken. Don’t be deceived by this false prophesying.
It could be that Y2K had a dramatic deadline whereas climate change does not. It’s effects are more diffuse and more acute in the developing world where we aren’t. Climate change is a slow fizz crisis, and we Americans have a limited attention span.
But there’s a more fundamental reason for our alarm over Y2K and our apathy over the environmental crisis.
It ain’t the economy; it’s the science stupid
Evangelicals, as a community, tend to be more suspicious of science than other communities. Many evangelicals take exception to the primary narrative of modern science, called evolutionary theory. Which has nothing to do with the environment or climate change (until reference is made to climate changes in ice ages much further back than 10,000 years.)
It could be that evangelicals as a community are used to the idea that the “minority position” on a scientific issue (like evolution or climate change) is the more faithful-to-God position. In adopting the minority view we’re doing our job stickin’ it to the man. Evangelicals tend to enjoy the technology that modern science makes possible and are very adept at using it but maintain a more cautious view of the scientific enterprise behind the technological advances, perhaps for this reason.
Hold your horses…
We can respectfully disagree and keep an open heart to each other even if our minds are made up on this issue. Some of my best friends think climate change is based on bogus science. Some of them know better than to even read a post like this. There he goes again….
I am not saying any given evangelical who thinks climate change is bunk doesn’t have thoughtful reasons for this conclusion. I know an evangelical meteorologist who thinks it’s overblown. He’s a very thoughtful person. But his professional organization disagrees with his perspective. I also know several climatologists–whose field it is–and they are convinced. I’ve grilled some of them about objections I’ve heard (including one of the final authors of the IPPC report) and their answers made perfect sense. They said the alternate theories (sun spouts, clouds, natural cycles, etc.) had been taken into account and ruled out.
I got an email from a thoughtful evangelical friend which said the Arctic ice is not melting as we’ve been told, but I was in the Arctic this summer and talked with a world reknowned glacier specialist who assured me that the Arctic is melting much more rapidly than anyone predicted. We sailed through sections that hadn’t been passable in a long, long time. Unless they were lying to me. Do I trust the email from my evangelical friend or one of the world’s experts in glaciers and my own eyes?
Some of us might be competent to make an independent assessment of the available scientific evidence and have concluded that the consensus is mistaken and the minority opinion has greater merit. But that’s not most of us. Most of us make a judgment based on authorities we trust or not.
Our Bible supports the notion that humanity has a very powerful capacity to misuse and abuse God’s good gifts with tragic results, and that global disasters are part of the deal. So if anything we ought to be inclined to accept human caused climate change as plausible. But something is trumping this, obviously. I think it’s the suspicion of mainstream science so prevalent in the American evangelical community. We don’t trust it. Plus we get a disproportionate amount of our information on climate change from the conservative media preferred by white American evangelicals, especially. Cultural bias, I think, is trumping theological bias which is not uncommon.
What if 9 out of 10 doctors thought your child needed treatment?
I am not competent to form an independent judgment on the competing claims of scientific experts on climate science. So I’m left trying to discern which authorities are likely to be most trustworthy and where the preponderance of expert opinion lies. I like what Thomas Friedman says about this: if 9 out of 10 doctors told you that your child had a medical problem that needed attention would your authorize the care recommended by the the nine or withold treatment based on the opinion of the one?
Or maybe the Y2K-ers helped us avert a real disaster….
Of course, there’s another possible lesson to be learned from the Y2K experience. It could be that what seems now in retrospect like wild over-reaction was actually part of mobilizing computer engineers all around the world to work hard at fixing the problem before it hit. Maybe without people filling their basements with bulbar wheat those who could do something about fixing the problem before it hit would have been less diligent and Y2K would have turned into the disaster the fear mongers feared.
In which case, we owe the fear mongers a debt of gratitude.
Tags: apocalyptic, bulbar wheat, climate change, climatologists, enviornment, evangelicals, evolution, I.P.C.C., media, meterologists, science, thomas friedman, Y2K
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
I agree with what you have to say, Ken. Global warming is very real and it’s here to stay. Much environmental degradation and human and animal suffering will be caused by it.
But what does Jesus have to say?
Jesus says, “The time is coming when those in the tombs will rise from the dead. Some will rise to the glory of the resurrection. Some will rise to destruction.” There’s going to be a separation of the human race. The time between the first and second comings of Christ is a time for proclaiming the message of salvation. We’re not talking just about enriching people’s lives here. We’re talking about saving people. That’s what Paul was about. That’s completely what he was about: “I’m going to become all things to all men so that some can be saved.” People’s eternal destinies are in the balance, and we are foolish to presume that people who don’t know the Lord are fulfilling the conditions for salvation apart from the Lord. The only sure way we know that people can be saved is to die in union with Jesus Christ. So if we love our neighbors everywhere, we will work without ceasing to proclaim Jesus’s message of salvation to all peoples.
That’s what Jesus has to say.
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Pastor Mike,Help me to understand. You believe that we are causing environmental degradation that is causing human and animal suffering and you think that Jesus doesn’t want us to pay any attention to it because somehow that will distract us from preaching the gospel so that less people will be saved? I don’t see the connection at all. Would you fault Jesus and the apostles for bothering to heal the sick and feed the hungry? Has the church been wrong all these years in seeking to alleviate human and animal suffering where possible? This goes back to what I suggest may be too narrow an understanding of the word salvation, gk. sozo, to save, rescue. Jesus is a rescuer. He rescues people from distress. If we follow him, won’t we be inclined to do the same? And if people in need of being rescued saw the Jesus followers being good news for some of the global problems we’re facing, wouldn’t that open their hearts to the message of saving faith? Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? Ken
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Your comments are right on the money, so to speak. From my perspective, the “evangelical/fundamentalist” community has struggled for a long time on the worth of the planet. For many, the end can’t come quickly enough – so that we can all flit off to heaven, or whatever the destination might be.
Many years ago, someone asked me when I was expressing concern about nuclear disaster, “What’s the problem? If we all die, we go to heaven.”
I thought about it for a long time, and came up with this – “a dream” so speak – that when I got to heaven, God would say, “You didn’t care about my earth. What makes you think you will care about my heaven?”
Evangelicals/fundamentalists have always felt on the outside of things … and with a heaven-centered eschatology, often end up enjoying this life, but only for themselves, letting the rest of the world go to hell, so to speak, and easing the conscience by “gospel” preaching – in effect, saying “Here’s Jesus, now go on your way and be warm” (see James 2:16). By so doing, we play into the hands of the powers and principalities, by reducing the gospel to a feel-good, get-right-with-Jesus, nostrum, while turning a blind eye to the systemic evils that destroy both body and soul for millions.
All that said, I appreciate your thoughtfulness … yours is not an easy road to tread. The evangelical/fundamentalist community is wrestling with some transformative energy … afraid to change it’s mind, and afraid not to.
Blessings on your work …
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Tom, Exactly! If we don’t care about the good earth which he created and we are called to steward, what makes us think he’d entrust us with the new heaven and earth! This is a foundational principle of Jesus–he who is trustworthy in little things will be given greater. Your dream is spot on and it will preach. I’m looking forward to giving it a whirl! Pastor Mike, are you listening? Ken
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Okay Global warming really? I should really let Jeff handle this one, but I really cannot resist. Honestly, I think tend to agree with my husband (meteorologist) because the global warming tactic is nothing more than that. I will agree, however that there is climate change in that there are cycles our earth goes through in warming and cooling. If there really is global warming, then why did Michigan have near record high snow fall in 2007-08? Also as I recall global warming indicates that our polar ice caps are melting and will continue to melt over time due to the harmful emissions being placed into our atmosphere, hence dumping tons of cold fresh water into the ocean. Hmm sounds like another great flood. I’m really not trying to poke fun, but didn’t God promise He would never flood the earth again? With that said, I believe that global warming is nothing more than a way for governments to monopolize.
I do however, believe that it is still our responsiblity as Christians to take care of God’s planet by not being wasteful, using green products, being organic, etc. Without doing these things we are responsible for those things which creates man-made pollution. Which will have a greater effect on humans and animals. It has nothing to do with Global Wamring or Climate change, but rather the things we put in our bodies, on our bodies, and in our own environments. It is these pollutants that are getting into our food, water, and we are breathing them in our home environments as we continue to use harmful very toxic chemicals as cleaners, putting chemicals on our skin, and digesting pesticides. Those are the things which have been proven to cause cancer, digestive, and respiratory problems, but I could go on and on so I will leave it at that.
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I believe we christians have lost a holistic, organic view of life in general. The “someone” is out to get me, because of my belief in Jesus, mentality, has led to a good deal of aberrant behavior and faulty conclusions. We find ourselves praying against this and that and protecting ourselves from what is often only our own imagination. Funny, since as I read the book, we win!
It seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon, due to the industrial age that we stopped caring for the earth, which appears to have come after we stopped being dependent on foods produced locally at the family farm to live.
Progress and capital replaced giving thanks to God for the successful harvest, good weather, and crop. As soon as we no longer felt like we needed to treat the land with respect because we needed it to survive, we lost the dependence on God for our livelihood.
Lack of community (dependence on one another) promotes the thought that we only need to survive.
Thanks Ken
January 2nd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Cassady, I can imagine that the consensus of science is incorrect on climate change. But it’s difficult for me to imagine that so many scientists are in on a conspiracy on the part of governments around the world to increase their power. The IPCC report involves hundreds of climate scientists from over 80 nations. If there were vested interest in the climate change debate–which of course there are–then I think it’s more likely to think that the multinational oil companies who spent millions of dollars trying to cast doubt on the climate change science to be more of a factor. The governments are as tied to oil–and in a more short term way–than they are eager to expand through cap and trade systems etc. (which require a lot of political will to try to pass…)
And you probably already know that the climate change science doesn’t predict a worldwide flood like Noah’s time, but just increased flooding as sea levels rise affecting low lying areas.
Fortunately, with a christian perspective on stewardship we can agree on good energy policy whether or not climate change science is accurate. There are so many good reasons to reduce coal burning power (very polluting for the kiddies, etc.) and reducing our dependence on oil. So I think we could find lots of common ground, based on God’s word.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Call me cynical, but the common denominator between Y2K Panic and Environmental Apathy is $$$. At bottom, I don’t think such attitudes have that much to do with being Christian.
Recently I heard about a Christian man who is convinced he needs to arm himself, because in the current economic situation people may soon try and take what he has by force. Such thinking is profoundly un-Christian — lacking faith, hope and love, not to mention generosity. But it sounds an awful lot like the Y2K panic. I think western Christians suffer from spiritual infections related to our affluence and relative security….
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 am
A good book for everyone to read–GW believers and skeptics–is “Cool It” by Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg agrees warming is happening and human activity likely plays a role, but points out the prevalent thinking on how to combat it will cost billions upon billions and have little positive impact. He suggests simpler and less costly steps that would be far more effective in dealing with warming.
Those of us who are struggling to jump on the bandwagon would just appreciate a little more humility on the part of the true believers. In light of the fact that a mere 30 years ago the scientific community was predicting a new ice age…it is actually quite reasonable to be a little skeptical about the current consensus. One doesn’t have to be a dimwit to be a little skeptical about all this.
Again, both sides should read “Cool It”.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 am
Ken, I’m glad to answer your questions.
Q: Do I think that Jesus doesn’t want us to pay any attention to it (environmental degradation that is causing human and animal suffering) because somehow that will distract us from preaching the gospel so that less people will be saved?
A: Yes I do. It would take some of our time, energy, and resources away from the evangelization of those who are unsaved, the prime directive of Jesus.
Q: Would I fault Jesus and the apostles for bothering to heal the sick and feed the hungry?
A: No I wouldn’t. As far as I can tell, they did the healing and the feeding in direct connection with their preaching, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand,” and similar related preaching.
Q: Has the church been wrong all these years in seeking to alleviate human and animal suffering where possible?
A: No it hasn’t, as long as it was done in direct connection with the evangelization of those who were unsaved, the prime directive of Jesus.
Q: Jesus is a rescuer. He rescues people from distress. If we follow him, won’t we be inclined to do the same?
A: Yes we will, as long as it is in direct connection with the evangelization of those who are unsaved, the prime directive of Jesus.
Q: If people in need of being rescued saw the Jesus followers being good news for some of the global problems we’re facing, wouldn’t that open their hearts to the message of saving faith?
A: Perhaps in small measure. But it would still take at least some of our time, energy, and resources away from the evangelization of those who are unsaved, the prime directive of Jesus.
Q: Can we walk and chew gum at the same time?
A: Yes we can, but when I used to do it many years ago, chewing gum took none of my time, energy, or resources away from my walking.
Now it’s my turn for a question. Do you believe that if every human being alive today were to die this minute, the majority of them would be left unsaved for all eternity?
Yes or no?
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
Pastor Mike, If I understand you correctly you are saying that we shouldn’t pay any attention to the harm we are causing by environmental degradation. What other sins shouldn’t we pay any attention to? If we know that our actions are causing harm, we have a responsibility to stop them. This is part of the call to repentance. I do see that you agree that the gospel should be proclaimed both in word and deed. We are called to do both, regardless of the effort involved. We should be led by the spirit in combining word and deed. Deeds should include a wide range of good as led by the Spirit. Including caring for the poor, which means caring for the environment on which the poor especially depend. Of course this should be combined with our proclamation of the gospel. Simply doing one or the other is disobedient and lazy.
I take very seriously Jesus’ warnings about hell. I don’t think I’m competent or authorized to judge how many people or what percentage of people would be saved if everyone on the planet today were to suddenly die. As many as possible, I hope. I believe Jesus when he said the way to life is narrow and the way to destruction is broad. I believe Paul when he says that God wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. I believe Jesus when he says that he has been given authority to judge.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
Brian, I agree with you that it’s good to have many different perspectives on how to best reduce carbon emissions and the book you suggest sounds like a good contribution to that discussion, so long as the case for more agressive action is also considered. It’s even good to have people questioning the consensus so long as their voices are not artificially magnified and their views are weighed in light of the consensus view and the potential harm of doing nothing. Critics keep everyone honest. We have a history of being slow to act in caring for the creation so I think that danger needs to be given full consideration as well. If in fact, we go overboard it would be the first time in history that we have done so (on any scale, say the clean air and water act, or the effort to reduce the emissions that were enlarging caused the cancer producing hole in the ozone layer) but it is still, I suppose a danger.
Your book should be read in tandem with the IPCC report, which President Bush has signed off on, agreeing with it’s findings that climate change is caused by human activity and the seriousness of the problem. I think we owe that to our President. So while we’re doing all this study, lets get together to REDUCE carbon emissions as even the oil companies are now agreeing that this is important for the sake of the environment. Once we achieve some reduction (we’ve only been increasing them since President Bush urged us to reduce them voluntarily) we can worry about going overboard in reducing them. It will take very intentional and collective action to reduce carbon emissions and thereby even begin the process of reducing let alone the damage.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Ken, you wrote an article on one topic and now have veered a different direction in the comment section. In the article, you accused evangelicals of being anti-science, but then in the comments you focus on how we need to take care of the environment.
I say, sure we need to take care of the environment. Finding renewable sources of energy, reducing pollution, recycling more, etc. are all things I think most people can agree on. The issue gets contentious when we talk about massive programs that will cost massive amounts of money yet have little effect, and this is the heart of that debate. This resistance to the cries of imminent global disaster comes not primarily from evangelicals but from political conservatives, which the majority of evangelicals appear to identify with. For some political conservatives, it’s the resistance to big government programs and intervention. For others, it’s interference with their industries. But for most, it’s the massive cost that it will involve to do things that will not have an effect equal to the cost.
But to your other issue, the lack of trusting in science. The more I learn about the way scientific research is done, the less I trust science. It is so incredibly politicized. Researchers need money to do their research, but to get the money, they have to do research projects that seek to get information that is politically desirable. They need to do research to keep their jobs or keep or improve their status. Then, once the research is done, the media grab the results of the research they like (that’s part of their “script,” to use the journalistic term), and ignore the research that doesn’t fit their script. So what gets promoted to the public is distorted. This includes science magazines, who are no less ideological than other media.
By e-mail, a few days ago I sent you a web link to the Senate government website for the minority Senate group which claims an increasing number of scientists reject the global warming disaster hysteria. When the 2007 IPPC report was released, 400 scientists were skeptic about it; now the number is 650. This web page has tons of web links of documentation to the reasons for this rejection of the IPPC report. It also includes quotes from scientists who have found themselves treated harshly by others for not following the party line on global warming…the same thing that happens to scientists who dare to question evolution, even without being creationists. (In my e-mail I also sent you a .pdf of the full 231-page report of the recent meeting of scientists in Poland on the topic of global warming.)
What I’m trying to say here is, at least for me, and I know for some others in my circle of family/friends, the issue of not trusting scientists is not religious but simply an observance of political hijacking. The louder they scream, the less they can be believed. The evolutionists and the global warming people both are incredibly shrill when anyone challenges their cherished beliefs. I am more inclined to listen to scientists when they show open-mindedness to dissent. When they act like this, they do not make me bow down and say, “Oh, you’re the expert! Thus I must believe you!”
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
JLee, I haven’t found the climate scientists that I know to be anything like what you describe. One of them attends our church. Others that I have met are the top climate specialists in the United States and elsewhere. I found them to be pretty open minded, willing to entertain other perspectives. I observed them talking among themselves over disputed aspects of climate change. 650 skeptics on climate doesn’t strike me as a huge number at all given all the scientists involved. And often those listed are not specialists in the field of climate. Please keep in mind that the Republican climate naysayer Senator who used to chair the Senate Energy Committee was Senator Imhoff, who received many thousands of dollars, his largest funders, I believe from oil companies (he is the Senator from Oklahoma, a big oil state.) In my experience those in the media who
speak up against the consensus on climate change are among the most ideologically driven and shrill spokespersons. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the other guy on WJR later in the evening. (The only Regular talk show host on WJR who is not conservative and a climate change skeptic is Mitch Albom.) I think a scientist like Jim Hansen the top NASA climate specialist was very frustrated when political appointees (not scientists) were attempting edit reports he made on climate, asking him not use the term “warming” and generally seeking to impede his work because the administration at that time (no longer) was skeptical about the science. We’ve had eight years when the most powerful people in the executive branch and the congress with very close connections to the oil business were strongly skeptical of climate. Millions of dollars were spent by the oil companies to cast doubt on the science. Exxon and others have since shifted and agree that it’s a problem that needs attention. So I think there’s a really good case for the opposite lean in the debate up until now.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I am hearing Pastor Mikes coments and wondering how he would respond to a non christian who believes in global warming, and is angry because many Christians whom claim to know the one who created the earth could care less about preventing global warming. What would he say to convince this non christian to becomed “saved” I believe the gospel looses credibility when we dismiss the wholeness of salvation and creation.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Ken, it isn’t so much that the scientist on in on something it is more that some extreme scientist have said that global warming poses a major threat and have grouped together to strip any meteorologist of their AMS certification if they disagree with them. This is a very real reality, the control tactic of forcing others to conform based on what a few say could be true, but lacking significant facts. Plus from what I understand the man-made pollution has very little effect on long-term damage, but more short-term, ie- human illness, plant life, and animals. Again, I believe my husband Mr.Weather man could better argue the exact science behind all of it
And again, I do of course agree that as Christians we should really all be going green and organic as it not only is better for the environment, but is also requires community– which is a major reason for churches 
January 4th, 2009 at 12:45 am
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/
Also, anyone who wishes it has access to some world-class scientists through our scientific panel at Creation Care for Pastors. Check out: http://www.creationcareforpastors.com/about/advisors/
January 4th, 2009 at 7:45 am
yes, on the creationforpastors site you can actually email scientists with questions….
January 5th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Ken, your Jan 3rd reply was thought-provoking for me. You directly answered my question and went beyond that to answer other of my points as well. I don’t take for granted your thoughtful comments on these pages, so, thank you!
I agree with some of what you had to say. You also asked, “What other sins shouldn’t we pay any attention to?” That’s an intriguing question, to say the least.
I agree that repentance includes genuine contrition and a sincere commitment to “Go and sin no more.” So herein lies the conundrum: What do I do tomorrow afternoon from 1-5 pm, immediately after my lunch break ends? Do I put those 4 hours directly into the evangelization of those who are not yet saved, or spend 4 hours directly on the prevention of human earthly suffering that is being caused by the environmental degadation that I and other people like me are responsible for? Do I choose the former or the latter?
If I choose the former, I can support my choice with the words of Jesus and Paul and others, and I’m confident that you already know what those words are. I know some of the words of scripture that you can use to back up your choice, if you choose the latter. So it may just boil down to your feelings and my feelings, what you care about the most and what I care about the most. I care the most about those who are getting close to the time of their death and therefore to their possible eternal separation from God. That’s what I see as the undeniable logic of our Faith, a logic that I have yet to see invalidated by any scriptural or theological argument that I have heard of.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Pastor Mike, Of only God can say, but it sounds as though the logic of your faith as you’ve described it here may be more human than divine logic if the consequence is that it causes you to ignore one set of scriptures in order to obey another. My own sense is that that mind of God imparted by the Spirit (a personal being with a capacity beyond human logic) would have a different path. The logic you describe would seem (only God and you would now) to have you care less about something God cares more about–your concern to be a good steward of his gifts, this earth included. Perhaps rather than simply appealing to a scriptural or theological argument, I could simply ask you to ask God about this and do whatever he says. Blessings, ken
January 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“Eight years ago today we were all breathing a sigh of relief about the Y2K disaster that didn’t materialize. Evangelicals more than most.”
January 1, 2000 was 9 years ago, not 8.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Ken, perhaps God had called me to do what I am doing with my life and God has called you to do what you are doing with your life, and the sum of it all is that God gets a variety of things done that way.
“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:11-13 NIV
February 26th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
That is the reason I cannot buy into the global warming hype… scientists. There are enough dissenters out there who are claiming faulty science in the conclusions and too much media coverage that doesn’t allow for the opposite view. (I’m leery any time legitimate skeptics (real scientists) don’t get the media time they deserve to show an opposing viewpoint).
Does this mean that I think taking care of creation is not important? Absolutely not! However, this global warming hysteria is over the top for me, and when attempting to have an intelligent conversation with people concerning climate change, I’m labeled a “Climate Nazi” who should have his head examined because I’m so stupid for not listening to science. I disagree not because I’m a scientist, but because there are many scientists out there who are being silenced by the media and their peers from offering a different perspective.
The world of science has become a competitive place when trying to get grants and funding for research, and I would think it no different then any other competitive arena where large sums of money are involved.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Eric, I checked out your link. It’s a blog put together by Senator Inhofe. Do you know how much money the Senator has received in his campaign fund from the oil industry? A very great deal of money. His is an oil state, Oklahoma. If you follow the money, I think you’ll see that the financial incentive for giving voice to the skeptics has dwarfed the money to be gotten from grants for researchers. There was a great deal of money spent by the tobacco industry to raise questions about the cancer-smoking link.
But the point of my blog post is that evangelicals being in a particular American sub-culture are much more likely to look into the skeptics on climate change and much less likely to read the IPCC report, for example. Climate change is very complex science. The IPCC report in 2001 said there was a 65% probablilty that the increase in warming is due to human activity. That’s a 35% chance that it is not. Of course there will be debate on this issue. The more recent report in 2007 put the probability at 90%. President Bush accepted these findings as did John McCain, and many Repubilicans, many oil executives (Exon Mobil pulled their advertising campaign to spread doubt about the science). Major business leaders have accepted the validity of the report. BEcause the evidence is accumulating.
On the media: evangelicals tend to listen to conservative media: am talk radio is an incessant platform for climate skepticism, as is Fox cable. (The talk show hosts on WJR–Frank Beckman, Rush, Sean Hannity, and the later night guy, they are all climate science skeptics. Only Mitch Albom is not, and he doesn’t talk about it much. These talk show dwarf NPR in audience) So evangelicals tend to be more skeptical. My point is, the skepticism is itself cultural and not theological. Theologically, we should be guided by prudence which says if there accumulating evidence that our consu,ption of fossil fuels is harmful, we shouldn’t insist on absolute proof before we take steps to stop the potential harm, especially when there are other good reasons for taking the steps called for (reducing dependence on foreign oil, reducing consumption in general, reducing reliance on coal burning for energy which all agree is harmful to the environment.
I know Jim Hansen and the other top scientists. I’ve never heard a single one refer to any skeptic as “climate nazi” or any other pejorative term. They are understandably frustrated that the growing and very serious problem they see has been largely ignored. Until recently. I think as evangelicals we need to be more aware of the cultural influences that affect us on these kinds of issues. They are not theological, but cultural I think. Theologically, we should lean in the other direction.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Ken,
thanks for the reply, sorry I was delayed in responding, but I just checked back today. I certainly understand the politics and money involved in the entire debate. I could easily ask you if you knew how much money certain politicians who have “bought into” global warming received from various “green” energy companies towards their election. Politicans make money from green companies, just like they do oil companies. Corruption runs throughout the government on both sides of the argument and that I think we can agree on. As far as Inhofe goes, I doubt he shared his campaign contributions with the 650+ scientist to get them to sign on though, and that is where my contention with global warming is, not so much on Inhofe’s report, but through the testimony of skeptical scientists.
I’m certainly a skeptic, but I believe it has less to do with me being an evangelical, and more to do with me not trusting anyone in government. They all have an agenda, with the exception of a select few, and even they probably have an agenda. The whole thing is one corrupt mess, and any time you have billions and trillions involved, it’s difficult to trust the motives of anyone who possibly has any chance of benefiting monetarily, including people like George Bush and John McCain, neither of which I am even remotely close to being a fan of.
Concerning Media: Frank Beckman (don’t listen) Rush Limbaugh (maybe 15-20 minutes per week), Sean Hannity (a puppet for the Republican party), The later night guy (never heard of him). I believe there was a song someone once sang that had the line, “believe half of what you see, and some to none of what you hear”. The older I get the more I realize how true this is, especially as it relates to media, both conservative and liberal, because just like everything else, money is involved and indeed the love of money.
I believe we should follow the path of clean energy for the sake of the environment, I really do. What I have a hard time swallowing is the consensus, when I don’t see one. It’s almost seems if people feel they say there is a consensus enough, everyone including skeptic scientists will begin to believe it. I would love to see a true representation of scientists get together to discuss things in a public forum. The only problem is no matter which side organizes it, they can stack the numbers in their favor. It all boils down to there being to much money up for grabs on both sides of the argument. Until money is not a motivating factor for both sides, I will find it difficult to not remain a skeptic.
On a side note, I think the way you handled the message series you did on creation care to be very effective, and I still believe you have a lot to offer in bridging the gap. While I don’t agree with your position, I embrace the wisdom you have in how you handle the argument itself as you work as an ambassador of the message of creation care.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Eric, A parable: You’re driving in your car at night, and the headlamps burn out, so you’ve only got the parking lights. You’re in a car that can’t stop. It can only speed up or slow down. You start getting IM messages on your phone from friends warning you that a bridge up ahead is in danger of collapsing. They urge you to slow down. But you also get a few IM message from friends who say it’s all just rumors, the bride is not going to collapse. The majority of IM messages–the vast majority–warn you, though. What do you do? Speed up, keep the same speed, or slow down?
The car is the world, the whole world, we’re driving together in this one car. We Americans are in the drivers seat because we have the most power, use the most energy, have the most resources to deal with the situation. The car cannot slow down without us.
Currently we’re speeding up. Energy consumption has been on the rise, even after President Bush agreed with the science that says, “Houston, we have a problem” and asked us all to conserve energy as an intitial response. Perhaps with a combination of high gas prices AND global economic slow down, we won’t be able to speed up any more. (Hmmm….could that be discipline from God? we’re not slowing down, so he is slowing us down?) But what we really need to do is slow down ourselves. As intelligently as we can. Unless those smaller number of IM messages are correct, and it’s all overblown.
So what do we do? Popular opinion matters in a country like ours. What we each advocate matters.
What should Christians advocate? Ignoring the majority of IM messengers? Speed up? Or Slow down?
Any steps we take to limit carbon emission at best will be slowing down rather than speeding up. No way are we going stop. Should we slow down or continue to speed up? That’s the question. What does the biblical virtue of prudence counsel us?
The fact is, evangelicals function within a broader culture in the United States. A sub-culture. Affected by many different factors. It’s good that you don’t spend much time listening to Rush, but many of the people in the sub-culture do and that has a cultural effect. That and a gazzillion other things. Like what James Dobson says, and Tony Perkins, the most quoted evangelical in the media. The Bible recognizes this reality, that we are affected by our culture. And sometimes the religious culture we’re in affects us without our knowing it. When I am talking to someone about climate change and I know they are part of the evangelical sub-culture, I assume that they are skeptical about climate change, and I’m usually correct in that assumption. They invariably deny that their evangelical sub-culture connection has any bearing on their skepticism. I’m skeptical of that claim because the Bible teaches us that we are powerfully affected by our culture. That’s called “the world” in the negative sense in Scripture.
Eric, as evangelicals, we are suppposed to be MOST concerned about the gospel–which means making the gospel available to people who have not already accepted it. These people tend NOT to be skeptic on climate change. If you were to plant a church would you want to simply gather those who already in the evangelical sub culture or would like to reach lots of people who are not? Which group do you think most needs to hear the gospel?
So we have two powerful motivations not to be skeptics on climate change 1) Prudence. It’s better to slow the car down, given all the IM messages. and 2) The gospel. If we really want to get the gospel into the hearts of people who tend NOT to be skeptics about climate change, why wouldn’t we place a higher burden of proof on skepticism regarding the science? The Bible teaches us to believe that there is a dark side to technology, that humans are capable of ruining things, that greed, materialism and consumption can ruin things. This is exactly what the climate scientists are telling us is happening. The vast majority of them (not all of course, it is after all science–always room for doubt.)
Again, I just don’t get it.
People on the outside of faith looking in, quite understandably think: why would I want to be part of a sub-culture that tends to be suspicious of climate change, gets completely bent out of shape about the idea that nature has a way to have species adapt to enviormental change over time, don’t want men to use condoms who have HIV (would rather they transmit the disease than use the condoms, because they object to homosexual men using condoms, or doing anything that might support the use of condoms), and tend to make people who have different views than these feel out of place. I would stay away from such a sub-culture. And people, Eric, are staying away for these reasons. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination is LOSING members. Evangelicals are NOT having success in bringing the gospel to the unreached people groups in the United Stages. We are barely keeping up with immigration and population growth. The question is, what will those of us who care about the gospel do about it? Will we keep our heads the sand of the sub culture or pop up for a breath of fresh air, and consider another approach?
To quote Bill O’REilly, “Am I wrong?”
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Ken,
I appreciate your willingness to reply to me- a skeptic. I’m not sure that you parable takes into account the complexity of the issue however. The parable takes into account that there is only one person who can be harmed or not harmed by the decision… me. If I stop along the side of the road, or slow down a lot, I’m safe and relatively unaffected because it’s not that hard to pull off the side of the road. If the argument were that simple, then yes, that would be the best course of events. Unfortunately the problem is far more complex, and that is probably where my greatest frustration comes into play.
Let’s look at how a decision to slow down or stop would affect the poor in the real world. Obviously as Christ-followers we are compelled to look after them as well. Taking something like cap and trade, which is a very nearsighted approach to carbon emission control, and following it out via the law of unintended consequences; I see nothing good coming from it for the poor, especially in regards to energy costs. Unless the government steps in and fixes energy prices (price fixing has never had a good outcome in our nation’s history), the high costs to companies created by cap and trade will be passed on indiscriminately to the lower, middle and upper classes almost as an extra tax for energy (like we don’t have enough taxes now). Also, manufacturing will suffer and be able to hire fewer employees which will create a larger lower class, and that’s after hiking the cost of goods putting them out of reach for more consumers and the vicious cycle continues.
The message of man-made global warming seems to often carry the idea that all we have to do is put certain practices into place and it will be okay and there will be almost no negative consequences. Unfortunately, the decision to “do something” if man-made global warming is not true will wreak havoc on a global scale, especially with our current economic struggles. In the 70’s they were hailing the next ice age, I’d hate to cause all of the havoc for nothing.
Prudence would tell me not to do something that could negatively affect billions of people without being sure it was necessary. The gospel would tell me to watch out for the devastation of the poor for my hasty actions if I chose to slow down arbitrarily. In many ways it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario. The choice to act could bring calamity, as could the choice to do nothing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Eric, Of course we need to be thoughtful about how to respond. But if climate change is being caused by human activity, then a PRIME reason to deal with it is the reality that the vulnerable poor will suffer the most (50% of world population lives near close to the ocean–the most poor especially are affected by sea level rise; increased drought and flooding by climate change is especially bad in Africa). Just two examples. One could site the resurgence of malaria due to climate change. There are many things that we can do without government regulation. But not unless we think there’s a problem. The poorer nations of the world are asking the richer nations to do something. Does that tell us something? It would require restraint on the part of richer nations. It might affect the standard of living for wealthier people. Would that be acceptable? It might require sacrifice. We can make changes in ways that help rather than hurt the poor. The poor are currently adversely affected by coal buring power (affecting ashtma rates in cities where the plants are located–rich people have enough power to keep the plants way from their communities.)
There’s been a massive amount of science done on climate since the 1970’s. There wasn’t anything like the current consensus at that time about a localized cooling affecting Europe (that’s what they were talking about.)
We are responsible to use our intelligence by assessing the science as well as we can and by putting our minds to solutions that are wise. Saying that we could mess up either way isn’t an excuse not to act.
By the way, all the enviornmental people I know are ACUTELY AWARE of and concerned about solutions that are financially viable and which do not place a burden on the poor.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
I agree, if man-made climate change is indeed in effect, and we do nothing it will hurt the poor. But, if it is all based on false scientific claims, then the poor will suffer that way.
Perhaps this illustration will best show why I have the point of view that I have… The Apostles and disciples of the early church were willing to lay down their life for an unpopular message within the culture, because they believed it to be true. For a scientist in today’s culture to say man-made global warming is a myth, is to commit career and academic suicide, which would lead me to believe that they at least believe, and in fact believe strongly in what they are saying. The scientists I trust are the ones who have everything to lose, not the ones who have everything to gain by way of grants and other money by jumping on the GW bandwagon.
I’ll finish by saying you will not be able to convince me. I do think we need to work towards protecting the environment, but the methods that are being proposed are bad news. Even though I disagree with you on this issue, I still respect you probably more than any other pastor, due to your willingness to be yourself, speak your mind, and not put up a plastic front. This has been a great discussion, and I appreciate you taking the time to have it. Being this is your blog, I’ll give you the last word.