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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.

“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

January 1, 2000 was 9 years ago, not 8.