Subscribe to Posts
Love, the Holy Spirity, and Climate Science
It’s truly amazing how the mere mention of climate change in a blog post stirs up objections from believers. I’m guessing that three-quarters of those who read this blog think climate change is a hoax.
I don’t get it. There’s no doubt that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas. That’s undisputed physics. There’s no doubt that burning oil and coal for energy releases lots of the stuff into the atmosphere and that much of it remains there for centuries. There’s also little doubt that since we’ve been burning fossil fuels for energy, the average global temperature has been on the rise.
So the basics of climate science is pretty intuitive.
After that, it gets complicated. Because there are many other factors in a system like the climate: water vapor, sun spots, cloud cover, the list is endless. And this is what climate scientist study. They try to take into account all the different factors to determine the probability (certainty is a word scientists don’t like) that the recent warming trend of the last century is due (at least in substantial part) by this human activity.
Hundreds of climate scientists have been working on this from many nations. They do studies and publish results and bicker and dispute and get lost in the data and come up for air, and generally do what scientists do. Most of it is eye-glazingly boring to talk about at a party.
I am not qualified to independently verify their results.
But nothing I’ve read or heard or seen makes me think there is a massive conspiracy afoot to dupe the world concerning climate change.
I think the world as a system of vested interests has a very powerful incentive not to accept the science that says climate change is real and we need to do something about it.
I think these interests will continue to provide a very significant ballast that will prevent us from over-reacting to what the science is saying. I’m putting this mildly.
Talking it Over
I’ve been fortunate to talk personally with many climate scientists at length. I’ve pummeled them with my questions–mainly things I’ve heard from my fellow Christians who think there is a conspiracy of some sort. These scientist give very reasonable explanations.
A local friend mine is one of these scientists. He isn’t an ideologue. He is one of the most balanced and reasonable human beings I know. Like me, he knows and loves and respects many people who doubt the science that is his stock and trade. He calmly answers my questions and makes perfect sense to me.
I have another friend who has worked for the EPA for years. He’s an engineer. Actually one of their top technical experts. He was engineer of the year in the Federal system many years ago. I know this guy as well as I know anyone who isn’t a family member. He’s not a wild eyed environmentalist. He has as much personal integrity as anyone I know. I walk with him for about an hour at least once a week. I pummel him with my questions. He answers them to my satisfaction.
He explains to me, for example, how models work. How a scientist could say, “I tricked the model” and not mean something nefarious. I could pass on the explanation he gave me, but your eyes would glaze over. I’d also be explaining stuff I only know second-hand.
These people are credible witnesses. I trust their perspective because I know them. They are not on the radio or talking heads on cable television. They are people I know up close and personal.
On the other hand, the people who object to the climate science–I mean the ones I know personally–as a rule, don’t know as much about the science as these people I’ve mentioned. They are highly intelligent, well informed people, but they are not as close to the science as these others I know. So I find their doubts about the science less compelling.
The Work of the Holy Spirit
But there’s another factor at work. More than I’m interested in science, I’m interested in the work of the Holy Spirit. This has been a long-time pursuit of mine, not a recent enthusiasm.
And the fact is, I experienced a powerful work of the Holy Spirit in my heart some years ago. I would call it a work of repentance.
I was at a meeting with a bunch of scientists who were concerned about the environment. I spent a weekend with these scientists and with a bunch of non-scientist Christian leaders, all of them evangelical. Two groups that had never spent much time together before and whose respective communities tended to distrust each other.
During the meetings, while one of the scientists was speaking, the Spirit fell on me. I felt the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. I felt a swoosh descend from my face to my chest, and my throat tighten and my eyes water.
And I felt sorry, so sorry, sorry like only God can make me feel, for not caring enough about the beautiful, wonderful, sacred creation.
I felt intense sorrow that there has been such a divide, such a cultural gap, such a history of mutual misunderstand between Jesus followers in America and people who would call themselves environmentalists. It felt to me like I was sitting on a dividing wall between the two groups, and the wall was falling down, and I was falling with it.
Only it was an good falling, not a bad one. It felt like I was falling into the arms of the father in the story Jesus told about those two sons.
No, I am not claiming that the Holy Spirit whispered in my ear to say, “Al Gore is right and Rush Limbaugh is wrong about climate change.” But what the Spirit did in my heart that day has a big impact on how I respond to the people who care about this issue, and to the scientists I’ve met who are deeply concerned by what their science is telling them.
We need more love to deal with these vexing cultural disputes. Yes, more science, and more transparency, and more open debate, but also more love. Of all the things we need more of, love is the one we need more of most.
And it needs to be a particular form of love: God’s breaking-down-dividing-walls love. The love that broke down the wall between Jew & Gentile, Slave & Free, Male & Female. Love that falls on siblings who have been squabbling for a long time. Love that tenderizes hearts that have a tendency to get hard.
The big problems we’re facing today around the world–the crushing load of debt, abject poverty, terror, violence, failure to treat human life as sacred, treating God’s creation as if it were expendable–all of these together are going to require massive amounts of a resource that is freely available to us, but only if our hearts are open. Love.
Come, Holy Spirit, and fill our hearts, and renew the face of the earth.
Tags: climate change, come Holy Spirit, global warming, Holy Spirit, love, science
December 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Wonderful. Same prayer for health care…
December 9th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Ken, I would be interested in ‘pummeling’ one of your contacts with some questions of my own.
I must confess, though, the main driver for my annoyance with environmentalists has nothing to do with religion, but it’s the specter of the erosion of my freedoms if they get their way.
As you know I truly have an enthusiasm for cars, machines and industry in general. Unlike you, I don’t seem to feel God in nature so much (or in anything else), I much rather be working with my hands tearing up and rebuilding some mechanical, man made device than walking through the woods admiring the flora or planting something. I God is only found in nature, I am in trouble.
Every time this debate comes up, I start imagining and fearing a future where I am prevented from pursuing this area of interest or at least being taxed or legislated out of it. Kind of like Europe is currently. To me hell is having to take public transportation or living in a large city.
I truly love the American ideal of rugged individualism. I don’t want government or the EPA to artificially raise the cost of fuel, prohibit me from driving the kind of car I like, telling me where I must live, basically take most of my freedoms to pursue my passions simply because of a theory that seems to keep changing as the decades pass.
Since moving from Brazil, I have come to love the freedom in this country and fear it’s dissolving as I get older.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Joao, Thank you for your honesty! Yes, we enjoy the lifestyle that we have in America which is based on cheap energy. We know (no climate skeptic disputes this) that mercury and other pollutants from burning coal for electricity leads to higher rates of asthma and mental retardation. It’s the reason pregnant women should severely limit their intake of fish caught in the Great Lakes. We also know that if we all paid a little more for our energy, we could burn the coal more cleanly, or use other energy sources that don’t pollute. But generally speaking, we don’t want to do that. We would rather have other people get asthma or birth defects, knowing that it won’t likely hurt us. And of course, we fear that any shift in energy costs would hurt the economy on which we all depend. We have, in others words, a vested interest in things the way they are, so we place an extra burden of proof on any science that gives us information that if we accept it, might trouble our conscience.
We also have people inflaming the fears we all have about change. Fear is the easiest thing to inflame in the human psyche. Love is more difficult to inflame than fear. So we listen to fear and let it paralyze us. Rather than ask God for more love to overcome the fear. We don’t trust that God could give us wisdom to solve the problem. With wisdom, perhaps all of our fears wouldn’t be realized. Maybe there’s a way to solve the problem that keeps the best of our lifestyle and minimizes any negative impact. But right now there is so much fear and anger swirling around, and so little love, that we are not solving the problem.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill our hearts, and renew the face of the earth.
Maybe we need more of God, more of the Holy Spirit who drives out fear.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
“It’s truly amazing how the mere mention of climate change in a blog post stirs up objections from believers.”
I don’t think it is the ‘mere mention’ in ‘a’ blog post that does it. I think it is blog post after blog post after blog post that does it. Seriously, you write about this topic a lot. Speak about it a lot. Those of us in the Vineyard hear about it a lot at conferences. It isn’t a mere mention in a blog that elicits responses.
And while you’re reminding us of the danger of mercury, Ken, please inform everyone that they need to exercise great caution in using the new environmentally friendly CFL light bulbs. Break one, and you have a bit of a clean up issue on your hands…and a potential health hazard to your family if you don’t get it cleaned up right.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Ken, you said:
“We also have people inflaming the fears we all have about change. Fear is the easiest thing to inflame in the human psyche”.
It would seem Al Gore’s film and much of the language being used in Copenhagen, and the verbiage from the media are creating fear in the hearts of people as well, with models that are absolutely unverifiable. It seems to me fear works from both sides of this debate.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Brian and happylad,
What I’m getting from your comments is that you really could care less about environmental stewardship. Further, what I’m getting is that anyone who does express a concern about environmental stewardship should be put down. Or at least when Ken expresses that concern, the attitude seems to be that you have an obligation to discredit him on this issue.
I’m just an ordinary Christian. I don’t know anything about climate change, really. I don’t have any credentials in the climate change debate, if you wish to call it that. I’m not a scientist. Far from it.
But I am a Christian, and I do not like your tone. Your attitude. Your assumption that attacking expressions of concern is your moral obligation.
I don’t know whether you two are Christians or not, but if you are–and I suspect you are–I really have a job to do to overcome you. To overcome the hostility, anger, suspiciousness, fear, and open contempt you hold for people who don’t think as you think.
What you are exhibiting here is shameful. Christians reading this blog should be coming down on you like a ton of bricks.
We are in a mission field here in America. America is not our home. We are strangers here. Our home is the Kingdom of God. We are evangelists in America. And hostility toward the mission field can only end badly, in failure.
What you are exhibiting and preaching is failure. You are demonstrating to all of us Christians out here how to fail to do our Christian work. How to let our destructive emotions overcome our commission.
This blog is a public event. A public process. It is evangelism in its 21st century sense. Or one of the means we have to evangelize. It is not a private office in the back of the church where you may say anything you please.
Of course you may disagree with others about these issues. Of course we should debate the right course of action on matters of conscience and national policy. But you are not debating anything. You are venting. You are emoting. You are giving us all a bad name.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
i’m all about inflaming some love(as opposed to fear)!! thanks for this ken…and congrats on the award at windsor castle!! rocking the free world, man!
December 10th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Belfry,
With all due respect, you have no idea what my tone is as I respond to Ken’s posts. I have been under the impression forum’s such as this are open to a free exchange of ideas, debate, disagreement, etc. That is all I have done. I would suggest you may have assigned a hostile tone to me because you don’t like what I wrote. However, disagreement does not equal hostility.
You also have no idea what my views on environmental stewardship are. The church I lead has an environmental stewardship group, a recycling Sunday, etc. I can be skeptical of climate change science and still be concerned with caring for God’s creation.
I have not called anyone I disagree with shameful. I have not said anyone who disagrees with me should have Christians coming down on them ‘like a ton of bricks.’ I have not accused those who have a sincerely held disagreement with me of giving us all a bad name.
I would suggest that labeling a guy who simply expresses a difference of opinion as hostile, angry and contemptuous (in addition to the above referenced unflattering comments) raises questions about your tone.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Brian,
I do have an idea of what your tone is because words do convey tone. If your words convey an entirely different tone from the tone you wish to convey, then I’m not sure what we are talking about here.
If you have an often repeated objection to what Ken is saying, then call him up and talk with him about it. This is not a forum for resolving personal disagreements and disputes.
You are correct, I have no idea what your views on environmental stewardship are, except for what you say in your comments to Ken’s blog. These comments are what I’m responding to.
I can assure you that my tone is meant to be provocative. I mean to irritate you. I do want to get under your skin. It appears I have accomplished my objective.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Hmmm, as a person who was unfortunately required to endure two semesters of rhetoric for a master’s degree in English, I feel complelled to comment on the accusations regarding tone. I’m afraid I have to agree with Belfry that Brian and happylad’s comments do contain a degree of . . . something. I’ll label it distain. But then I think that Belfry overeacted to what he read, and took it up at notch. It’s called escalation, and it’s one of the problems that Ken is pointing out. I think it’s pretty common in these discussions.
What I would like to see more of is reasoned, respectful debate. Leave the distain and the overstatement at the door. Treat your brother with love. Seek to understand his point of view. Validate his thoughtful points. It’s a disciplined dialogue. It’s a hallmark of civilization. I think being a Christian calls us to this sort of dialogue.
What Ken has helped me become of aware of, and rightly uncomfortable with, is the choosing of sides on these issues. Choosing a side and then not doing any further thinking or critique or questioning. For example, the mercury issue is a good one. I’m a pretty soft-core environmentalist–I recycle faithfully but I’m not quite to composting yet. I bought some of those new light bulbs and then heard about the mercury thing and I’m really perplexed. It does seem contradictory to me. But I certainly haven’t researched it and I’m not going to get vehement about it.
On the other hand, I have a six year old with a neurological disorder, called autism, that was probably caused by an unknown environmental toxin. Maybe mercury. And it’s going to impact him and our entire family for the rest of our lives. My mother has almost vanished from Alzheimer’s Disease. These issues concern me greatly, and I am guility thankful that I’m in a position to access help–I grieve for poor native people who suffer from these kinds of things but have no money or top-flight research university down the street. I think it’s selfish and simply unconscionable to dismiss dangers that might be inflicted on the poor, the young, the yet-to-be-born. We should feel compelled to investigate thoroughly and make good decisions, even if they are difficult. And that’s born of my love for Jesus and my understanding of his stance toward those people.
All of these issues have made me question my former conservative, almost libertarian approach to things. Not abandon it, but question in a good way. Think about. Mull over. Research here and there. Take with a grain of salt. Hold lightly.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Belfry, Sarah, et al,
You have no idea what I believe. By simply questioning someone on the basis of their belief and rightly questioning statements made in a controversial topic is called healthy dialogue. I have made no accusations, nor have I called Ken’s integrity or love into question. But I have no qualms about discussing issues with passion. Civilized discussion is often another way of saying “Don’t offend anyone”. Jesus didn’t follow this model, nor did any of the prophets in the bible.
The Jewish model of education was completely opposed to Greek thinking. Healthy discussion, debate and, sometimes, outright verbal brawling was considered a healthy way to find truth. We are a society hell bent on not offending, meanwhile most of us are walking around offended most of the time.
Ken certainly carries a good portion of passion about his beliefs about the majority of evangelicals. I applaud his voice and his desire to hash things out on this forum. I could be wrong, but I think Ken is actually looking for questioning minds to dialogue on these issues.
But I do want to address some misconceptions that you have laid at my feet. I love God’s creation. I lived in the country in Michigan and barely threw anything away. We raised our own food, we composted and recycled everything. Right now I live in the suburbs and I recycle more than any of my neighbors. I have fuel efficient bulbs and have worked diligently on making my home as fuel efficient as possible with doors and windows that conserve the greatest amount of energy. My goal is to one day live on a farm that is completely self-sustaining and off the grid to the greatest measure possible.
I am all for legislation that keeps us from overfishing and wiping out species. I LOVE God’s creation. Did I say that already?
I believe that we can be amazing stewards of God’s creation without believing in the current scientific craze of global warming. It is accusations like yours that drive evangelicals in the other direction. Why don’t we drop the whole global warming issue and just address issues of the environment based on Kingdom stewardship?
December 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Happylad, I tend to be with you in what you have just said about caring for creation but not necessarily buying into human caused global warming fears.
I also resonated with you pointing out how Americans seem to get offended by every little thing and any disagreement with what the current group think says is automatically called hatred or bigotry. I feel that spirit , seemingly on a daily basis, and being the contrarian I am, my tendency is to then go out of my way to further offend the easily offended. (I am working on being more sensitive as I don’t see this attitude as Christlike)
But I do also resonate with Ken’s call for more love and Holy Spirit induced change in how we deal with those who disagree with us. I think that as believers, we are called to ‘eat’ more than our share of abuse. I think we are called to tell the Truth, but not react to opposition, however mean and wrongheaded, with a ‘tit for tat’ attitude.
I have personally seen this work on a good friendship I have with an agnostic buddy who id diametrically opposed to me in just about every issue you can think of and yet we have managed to maintain a close friendship (I was the best man in his wedding) by refraining from attacks (even when merited), taking a deep breath and trying to see the issue from the others’ point of view.
We have been friends since 1995.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The more I’ve thought about it the more I find myself agreeing with Joao. I think our country has excelled on the principles of cheap economics. We enjoy the fruits of our exploitations to a degree that I find myself believing the Church may be the only force to make change in the 21st century. That stems from my expectation that the Holy Spirit would act as a catalyst and that my faith in governmental intervention is dampened by corporate agendas and bureaucratic timelines.
I wonder if God’s Spirit is going to need to convict a lot more people in the way that Ken experienced? I feel a strong desire to change but at the end of the day, its too cold to ride my bike. I’m too busy to traverse the downtown and shop at the Farmer’s Market. I’m too materialistic to postpone purchasing an Xbox that can’t be recycled and will probably leak scary chemicals into some baby’s drinking water when I throw it out for being obsolete in 3 years.
I buy “green” light bulbs when ours burn out. I try to buy green coffee, toilet paper, and household chemicals. But I wonder if baby steps will make enough of a difference? It’s scary to think that God might ask me to give up “stuff”. I hope I’ll be courageous enough to respond when He does.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The only reason we love(?), or care about the creation, is because we love the creator. Where can we find any teaching by Jesus, or the twelve disciples, which leads us to spend our energy on these things? We actually prove our love for God by loving others, not the creation. I am actually sick and tired of listening to Christians describe how environmentally conscious they are, as if it is some badge of honor. I refuse to justify my lifestyle to the new Pharisees of the environmental age. Get over it…
December 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
gem, Oh my! These texts fly to my attention immediately. 1) May your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 2) “in the beginning it was not so” a common refrain of Jesus harkening back to God’s origional intention for humankind, which of course includes the command to tend the garden, not to mention the sacredness of creation as coming from the mind-heart-hands of God. 3) Love your neighbor as yourself, the law by which the followers of Jesus will be judged, his summary of the law and the prophets (that is, the Bible he knew). Primary reason to care for the environment is because it is the home to humanity, and when we don’t treat it well, humanity suffers. Not so much those who live with the modern conveniences and are one step removed from the natural environmnet; more so the poor, who depend on the quality of the environment for their daily sustenance. And of course, we will be judge by how we treat the poor. Trashing the environment is one of the main ways we hurt the poor. By the way these are not tangential scriptures by any stretch. They are central to the life, mission, and ministry of Jesus.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Nobody is advocating trashing the environment. Never advocated not caring for the earth. Jesus did not mean to align ourselves with the political/science movements of our day in the texts you are quoting. I think that the critical spirit of the self righteous environmentalist Christians is no different than the critical spirit of conservative Christians critiqued on this blog.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Gem, This from you, is what I was trying to respond to by mentioning the three texts, that to me, indicated that Jesus would want us to spend energy on taking better care of the environment than, as a whole, we are doing now. I was trying to say simply that we love others by taking care of the environment on which others depend. Does that seem like an answer to your question that may have some merit? It was simple point I was trying to make. (I thought “trashing the environment” wasn’t that provactive a thing to say, as I thought most everyone would agree that there is a lot of unnecessary pollution that we would do well to cut down on.)
“Where can we find any teaching by Jesus, or the twelve disciples, which leads us to spend our energy on these things? We actually prove our love for God by loving others, not the creation.”
As to your thought that we should not be part of any “political or science movements,” I would say that the teaching of Jesus makes these concerns part of his movement. These are not foreign concerns, these are his concerns, and so they should be ours. Is there something faulty in my reasoning?
December 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Ken, I think I understand what you are saying. But I think the relationship would be more tangential than direct. I don’t think we can claim greater love for others, based on the light bulbs we are using. We can probably claim something, but in the end I don’t think our love for others will be proven by our love for the earth. Which teachings of Jesus in the gospels, other than the text you quoted, lead us to this intense focus on the earth?
December 11th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Belfry,
You’re certainly free to continue assuming you can ‘hear’ my tone. But you really don’t know. I know what my tone was as I wrote, and it wasn’t angry, hostile, etc.
I also find it quite humorous that after your inaccurate assessment of my tone you admit to trying to irritate me and ‘get under my skin.’ I have tried to respect this forum enough to only state my sincerely held beliefs and engage in honest debate. I have not purposely tried to annoy or be an irritant to anyone. The one time I violated that (by saying something was ’silly’), I quickly apologized.
I will continue to post comments here when there are topics I’d like to weigh in on. Your suggestion I need to call Ken up and talk this out with him is really odd. Debate is part of what happens on blogs. And Ken has the ability not to post anything he chooses not to. So again, I find your suggestion odd.
I agree with jaoa…too many people are too easily offended.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ken,
The suggestion has been made that those of us who have disagreements with your blogs should just keep our thoughts to ourselves.
Do you feel that way? Is debate welcome here?
Thanks.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Brian, If I’m posting a comment, it is because the comment is welcome. I found the last round of discussion about tone to be interesting. Seems to be a lot of defensiveness or a quickness to take offense. I’m sure those who don’t agree with my thoughts see that in me more than I see it in myself. I think this has much to do with the medium of blogs–like emails. I happen to know some of the commenters (or can guess) and when I do I give more benefit of the doubt, assume less nefarious intent, etc. That’s the problem with this medium, it’s so cold. I also think it’s the state of our culture right now and we are part of this culture. The culture is cold, divided, on hyper-alert, anxious.
I found it a little ironic, the discussion, actually, because the point of my blog entry was to bear witness to the power of the Spirit to break through and touch the heart. I think there is a major work of the Spirit needed to touch our hearts so we can find a way to work together on these major problems. Or even to talk about whether they are major problems or not. Sometimes I find the conversation itself exhausting and curious and annoying and occasionally heart warming. (I found Joao’s comment #2 especially heartwarming for its honesty.)
I do cringe sometimes, like Belfry, at the thought of people on the outside of faith looking in on the conversation. I tend to see through that lens often because I have many loved ones who see the world in that way and so I am sympathetic. I myself was a secular person before coming to Jesus and I’m pretty sympathetic to that mindset. I think many secular people shame us Christians for the way they care about things that we’ve not been so good at caring about. The word secular means “world,” meaning this earth-universe. Love for this earth-universe should be applauded I think. It’s a lean of the heart toward God,in my book. Certainly those who are passionate about the environment and of a secular mindset would think twice about entering a community (the wider American evangelical community represented on the blog comments) where this is the conversation. But this is who we are right now, isn’t it?
I’m rambling, and it’s probably not what you were wondering about anyway, but there it is.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Gem, Self-righteousness is not winning and should be avoided, agreed. As to this point you made: “Which teachings of Jesus in the gospels, other than the text you quoted, lead us to this intense focus on the earth?”
If we are told to pray “May your kindgom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” that seems to me to say we ought to have an intense focus on the earth. What happens here on earth is very important. This is the overwhelming message of the very first chapter of the bible, which is by definition, foundational. All of this earth is created by God, is meant to be his temple, and is blessed. How can we read Genesis 1 and not come away believing that the God-created earth is a sacred trust? Jesus came to earth. Jesus left the church here to continue his work. Jesus is coming back here. If that’s not powerful motivation to care for it, I guess I’m out of luck offering anything that will be convincing. Does the parable of the master returning to a bunch of servants abusing other servants and trashing the master’s house have any bearing at all on this? I think so.
Its true that Jesus did not focus on care for environment, per se. He also didn’t advocate overthrow of an evil empire, Rome, per se. He didn’t advocate overthrowing an evil institution like slavery, per se. The environmental degradation of Jesus time was much different than our time however. The human population was a fraction of the current 7 billion. Counted in millions, not billions. The industrial revolution was centuries away. There was no over-fishing so that his friends Peter and John would be out of luck, as many village fisherman today in the developing world are out of luck. There wasn’t anything like industrial waste. But Jesus did give us his Spirit and the Spirit was given to lead us into all the truth that we would need until the end of the age.
So I think it’s good to be informed about what is going on that affects the enviornment, read our Bibles, and tune into the Spirit to see what the Spirit would say to us about this. I was trying, in the post to bear witness to what the Spirit did in my heart on this issue. Just a little wake up call to get started. No I am not an example of someone who cares for the environment like it should be cared for. I have many habits that could change to make me a better steward. But there are also things we need to do that like have better public policy, because we are part of complex culture, and public policy makes a huge difference. It’s a pain to get informed. It’s a pain to wake up to an area that you are really behind in and realize, o crap,I’m not nearly as kind a person as I thought I was, but it’s worth getting started once the Spirit gets you going.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Ken, you have good intentions, and that is a sound defense.
“May your kindgom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” this seems to me that the focus is on his kingdom, which is not of this world, and the intensity is on his will to be manifested as it is in heaven. If the focus of today’s environmental movement is the intent and desired outcome of the Lords prayer, we are at a friendly disagreement. I think we should care for the earth, but the focus should be on people, and sometimes this focus is at the expense of the earth.
Thanks for the opportunity to disagree!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Brian and happlylad,
I’m sorry. I flew off the handle.
Please forgive me.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Belfry, why do you feel the need to protect Ken (in your reply to Brian)? I find that most amazing since he is well able to defend his thoughts and blogs. I think you need to get over yourself.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Belfry, you are forgiven! Please forgive me for any offense I caused you as well.
I admit that I enjoy spirited discussion. This particular issue is one that is close to my heart.
God’s love for His creation and His desire for us to care for it is clear from Genesis to Revelation. I see clearly that we (mankind) have a mandate to tend and care for the earth in Genesis and He gives judgment to those “who destroy the earth” in the book of Revelation.
But what I don’t trust is the money and political clout people have received as a result of the fear that has been communicated concerning the current global warming issue. Research scientists and universitie make millions in research grants over the “global warming” issue. Al Gore himself has invested in “green technology”, some of which government funding (our tax dollars) are going directly into his pocket. In fact, he stands to be a multi-millionaire (I’ve heard some calculations saying he could become a billionaire) from the very controversy he raised. This causes great distrust in my heart. I don’t trust people who stand to become rich by promoting an issue.
I also find it offensive that many of those who preach the loudest about these issues (celebrities and politicians) use 10-20 times more carbon than any of us on this list.
Arianna Huffington invites Hollywood stars to her 35,000 foot mansion to discuss strategies to stop global warming and the stars all arrive in their SUVs. Al Gore uses private jets and drives in gasoline guzzling vehicles to his speaking engagements. What I hate is the hypocrisy of it all. I’d much rather read Mother Earth News or Back to Earth magazine and find out how I can live by using less power and by growing my own food.
Doesn’t it bother anyone else that the ones telling us “the sky is falling” have the most dramatic carbon footprints?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:00 am
happylad, It’s pretty easy to critique people for hypocrisy when it comes to environmental concern. Or to slam cultural icons like Al Gore. But your assessment of the incentives toward accepting the climate science is one-sided. Do you think the fossil fuel industry, the largest multi-national corporations on the planet, for example have a powerful financial incentive toward skepticism? Exxon has poured millions of dollars into advertising against global warming until recently. Do you think nation states like China, the U.S. and India–the most powerful nation states in human history–which have the most to lose because they are so dependent on high energy use, have a powerful financial incentive to be skeptical about climate science? Was the auto industry skeptical of the idea that auto exhaust was harmful in the early days? Yes.
Was the tobacco industry skeptical of the health dangers of smoking? Yes. (And remain so today when it comes to second hand smoke.)
Step back and ask where the most powerful incentives are: to maintain the status quo (the convenience of skepticism re climate science) or to reduce our depending on dirty but cheap energy sources?
If there is a reasonable case being made that actions we take are harming others, is it morally responsible to insist that we have to be absolutely certain before taking steps to stop harming others? This is the position of the Catholic Church on global warming: “there is considerable evidence that the earth is warming and our actions are leading to the warming, and that the warming will hurt the vulnerable poor the most; we should be prudent and err on the side of considerate use, not abuse. We should not insist on absolute proof before taking actions to limit the damage we may be doing. ” The pope has said this repeatedly and urged us to support efforts to limit our carbon output. So have the catholic bishops in the United States. Evangelicals in Africa are not leading the charge on climate science skepticism. Only in the United States. (The lead author of the IPCC report in 2001 was a British evangelical. ) This is an American evangelical phenomenon.
You’ve identified a few obvious cases of hypocrisy as evidence that climate science is faulty. Every one loves to jump on Al Gore; he’s an easy whipping boy in evangelical culture. But I know many, many environmentalists, and many many people who care about climate change who have taken personal steps to use energy more efficiently. On the whole, when people care about the possiblity that our actions are harming others, they take steps to reduce the actions that are harmful. The people I know who care about the impact of climate change are taking these steps. You could fault them for not taking more steps, but they are moving in the direction of more considerate use.
Doesn’t it bother anyone, that many reputable scientists–the national academy of scientists in 80 nations, not a single nation is skeptical about the science, though Saudia Arabia is rethinking–have said that our actions are harming others, especially the vulnerable poor and that unless we make adjustments it will get much worse–and evangelical Christians in the United States are on the forefront of saying, “WE think it’s all a hoax.”
Does it bother you at all, that American evangelical Christians are on the forefront of denying that we should take action to reduce what many scientists say is a real problem? Is it possible that the reasons for this are cultural and not rooted in our devotion to Christ himself and his kingdom?
It bothers me (obviously!) but it didn’t bother me until the Holy Spirit touched my heart and moved me to repent for the way I was harshly judging secular environmentalists. (And if you had asked me before the Spirit came on me, if I had been harshly judging these people, I would have insisted otherwise. I didn’t see it until I was shown it.)
Come, Holy Spirit, fall on our hearts! Lord Jesus, Lord of creation, fall on our hearts! Soften our hearts, give us hearts of flesh!
December 12th, 2009 at 9:02 am
As we have off-shored our economic output to the third world countries of the earth, we have created some of the worst polluters since the industrial revolution. While we have strict regulations, which are a very good thing, guarding the environment in this country, there is absolutely nothing controlling these issues in these new economies that exploit the poor of this earth. As we talk about light bulbs, the Chinese are talking about controlling population, even to a greater degree than they have in the past. Because humans are the problem.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
Destroy human life to save the earth. What does it profit the Kingdom of God, to save the earth while destroying human life? One human soul is of more value than the entire earth.
At the heart of the environmental movement is the desire to control humans. Governments like the idea to number and control people. The powers of this age do not value human life. And when they appear to value it, be careful what they are offering. If we accept the premise that climate change public policy is something that the church should wrap its arms around, then what strange bedfellows we have become. The church has vast resources, God himself, to work directly with the poor. I think the Christian ministries that are digging wells, planting food, fighting slavery, are doing far more than any government will ever do.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Happylad, you mention the passage in Revelation 11 when the 24 elders fall on their face and say;
“We give thanks to you, Lord God, the Almighty,
the one who is and who always was,
for now you have assumed your great power
and have begun to reign.
The nations were filled with wrath,
but now the time of your wrath has come.
It is time to judge the dead
and reward your servants the prophets,
as well as your holy people,
and all who fear your name,
from the least to the greatest.
It is time to destroy
all who have caused destruction on the earth.”
Who do you think are those that cause destruction on the earth referred to in this passage? This sequence of events is timed with the seventh trumpet; do think this is a fair passage to use when considering our responsibilities to be good stewards of God’s creation?
December 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I just skimmed this blog post and didn’t take in every detail, but the tone and arguments ring familiar. I also have been just recently accused of being ignorant and believing a giant hoax and lies about global warming. I am told scientists with findings that oppose global warming theories are pushed from the scientific stage. I read about clinging to the American lifestyle. Well we are all human.
It is my personal observation that the gross majority of people respond and address pain (like a kidney stone) much sooner than insidious non-painful disease (like gum disease). Too often the foundation is beyond recovery by the time the person experiences overt symptoms.
I have watched a blight destroying huge forests out West over the past several years. Winters haven’t been cold enough long enough. Ski resorts in Europe are losing ski runs and some will probably be shutting down. Coral reefs are getting very boring and looking. Fishing stinks. It is really rare to be able to see across a whole mountain range due to haze. Something is wrecking my fun, my lifestyle. I like to drive fast. I’m gonna be bummed when gas rises 20 fold in another decade. I don’t care if global warming “theory” is real. I look at a satellite image of the world and think if all those lights eat and poop, we got a problem. My electric meter is spinning when I think stuff is turned off. I am burning up energy when I don’t even want to. I don’t care if there is debate. That’s great. But are we to do nothing in the mean time? Do we risk being that patient who wants to fully experience loose teeth, bleeding gums and a rotten stink before he is convinced of the disease. If I have a gripe with God, it is this. We are mentally short sighted. Being pro-active is not one of humanities fine qualities. Two quotes come to mind. “If in doubt, guess money” and “It’s the economy stupid!” So, who has vested interest in arresting movement to sustainability. My guess is it comes from those who have the most to loose. The smart guns get us to be distracted by the arguments while their crime continues. ( eg. Dow chemical/ dioxin/ 30 years of feet dragging/ in the face of hard evidence of birth defects)
As believer– the dove part– follow the Holy Spirit. The wise serpent part– follow the money. Who is making money by protecting the status quo? Only God’s pure love is stronger than the love of money. May we grow in God’s love. Amen to Ken’s original entry.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Ken,
I love what you are doing with this blog. Thank for you for sharing how the Holy Spirit has burst open your heart for people who have various opinions on issues of environmentalism and science.
I have often thought that to be a follower of Jesus and his upside-down kingdom, one cannot hold to strongly to specific political or ideological affiliations. I firmly believe that Jesus is more conservative than conservatives, and more concerned about his creation then environmentalists. Following His way is just that – it’s His way.
As humans, I believe that are various focus groups do touch on God’s heart. The problem is we are coming at His heart issue from many different angles. Often we shoot right through his heart; at other times, we aren’t even close (even though we can find an interpretation of the Bible to back us up).
Take me, for example. I often feel out of place in my profession (a pastor in the Vineyard). In many ways (and I certainly was brought up this way) I am conservative. However, time and time again, the Holy Spirit peels back the layers of a particular issue and I see it in a different light. I love the creation. I think God does, too. I love freedom. But what is really freedom? What should government be doing? Should I care? Does God care? The end result is that I get confused and resolve to be open-minded and try to let the Holy Spirit keep doing his work on my mind. I resolve to be quiet more and be loving in my communication.
The kicker is this, though. I have to vote. I have to come down one way or another. And when I do, I am viewed through that narrow lens.
Take this whole issue of climate change. Like you so eloquently pointed out, few of us are touching the real science in this field regularly. We are left to sift through the articles or listen to our smart friends. And where I land seems to be a little different then where you land. You say it is fact that the average temperature has increased. Yet, I read other things that dispute that. What am I to do? You say that that the international oil conglomerates are the largest interest group with the most resources spent in lobbying for their point of view. That may be true, but as clearly as you see that, I see a a joint effort by governments to find a way to regulate and tax everything. Which is more powerful – big oil or big government? Who knows?
So I am left with really the same conclusion. Even though I must vote, even though I must, at times, land on one side of an issue or another – I resolve to love and to all my under-informed opinions to be changed by both good science and the Good Lord.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The Commonman say’s thanks to Ken for wrestling with the Christian response to global warming. I haven’t found many kindred spirits within my christian community which is the same as Ken’s but in another state.
I hope we all have a conversion to see Gods creation as something worth protecting and also to enjoy and meditate in because if we don’t get in touch with creation and experience the peace and presence of the creator that is found in the wild places we will never have enough Love to overcome all our over consumptive lifestyles.
I think whether you believe in global warming or not that you must see that we must change our lifestyles dramatically, if we want to leave something worthwhile for the coming generations.
I hope that I can be unselfish enough to look beyond my instant gratification and materialistic idolatry to overcome this great corporate sin that 90% of Americans are all caught up in.
Keep preaching the whole Gospel Ken and pray for us because we need the fullness of the holy spirit to live out these kingdom principles until the whole earth is restored.
December 13th, 2009 at 9:56 am
In the interest of transparency and technical excellence, the following people are not political, media, or scientific hacks. There is enough debate and challenge amongst scientists today, that leads me to think we should not be jumping on the emotional roller coaster of those rioting in Copenhagen. Just what we need, more anxiety in our anxiety drenched world.
Forget about consumption for a moment, unless you want to turn off your computer and set your coffee down, if the rest of the world followed our current EPA rules that would be of more substantial impact than the debated science of global warming. But if you want to start the consumption debate, then there isn’t a single American that can comment without hypocrisy.
I am not challenging what the Holy Spirit has said to you. And neither are the following scientists. But there are many people that see significant bias in how the climate debate is being handled today. You believe it is big oil , big money, and conservative NASCAR evangelicals that are keeping us arguing. Some of us can’t accept that when we see the media, Hollywood, political/science machine pushing global warming theory into our lives, while at the same time ignoring those in the scientific community that disagree with them.
Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Benjamin, you took my thoughts and articulated them better than I ever could.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Ken, I have read your book, blog, prayed for you, disagreed with you—on the blog, etc.. You have obviously chosen sides on this global warming issue. In fairness to you, you have not claimed that God has chosen sides. But, based on your position in the body of Christ, the side you choose affects those that listen to you. Our comfort level, whether we like it or not, with what we think God likes is linked to what our leaders do and say. Is this blog part of the wall coming down, or is it part of one side of the wall?
December 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Joao et al.:
I have heard the personal freedoms line of argument before from people on the “against” side of the climate change debate. I think that the fact that this argument is compelling is a testament to how ineffective climate change advocates have been in advancing their message, as we all accept that our personal freedoms are curtailed for the good of society.
For example (and one that I could imagine being close to your heart), we post speed limits. And no matter how much you like muscle cars, with their big engines, you probably obey the speed limit (most of the time, anyway
). But why? Probably because you are concerned for the safety of others on the road. So you are willing to accept the limiting of your personal freedoms for the good of other drivers.
I would argue that this same line of argument applies to climate change as well, but that the “safety of others” is harder to conceptualize. For instance, it is well-known that children raised in smoggy areas have lots of health concerns that don’t affect children who don’t live in those smoggy areas. So, since someone is harmed by smog, don’t we have an obligation to try to cut down on smog-producing emissions, even if that means cutting in our personal freedoms?
I think that this is where the climate change advocates do not do a good job. They do not do a good job of reminding people WHY climate change matters, in a personal sense. Consider the case against smoking – we have legislated no smoking in public places. Why? Because we have decided as a society that the health concerns of the many trump the personal freedoms of the few. And why has this push been so successful? On the one hand, it is certainly because the science behind the link between cancer and tobacco is sound. However, I think just as large of a reason is because cancer advocates were able to put faces to the cause – how powerful are the commercials showing someone with a tracheotomy who still can’t quit smoking? Furthermore, almost everyone knows someone affected by tobacco-related cancer. So the cause has a face, as well as science, backing it up.
Not so much with climate change. But is the scientific link between climate change and emissions any more tenuous than the link between cancer and smoking? I would argue that it really isn’t – it took a while before people started to respond to the science behind the tobacco-cancer link too, in large part because of the tremendous amount of money put out by the tobacco industry to discredit the science. I think that the problem facing climate change advocates in winning the hearts and minds of the general public is that it’s hard to put a face to climate change like you can for cancer.
What do you think? If you saw commercials showing the damage wrought by climate change, would you start to be more convinced that you would accept the curbing of your personal freedoms, even willingly curb them yourself? Unfortunately, I think this is probably what it will take – a coastal city or island nation being swallowed up by the ocean with thousands or millions displaced – before we as a society start to recognize climate change for the threat it is.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Gem, This is less impressive a list that it appears. First it is a list of 19 scientists. A number of the scientists (Freeman Dyson, for example) are speaking to an issue outside their field. Others are speaking to very limited issues (whether or not climate change has affected the range of mosquitoes, for example). I know a climate scientist, for example, who says there is no certain link between global warming and hurricane activity; however she doesn’t doubt that climate change is real, caused by human activity and needs to be addressed. One could go down the list and make similar observations.
One could furthermore list hundreds of climate scientists who have been working on this problem for decades in rebuttal to this list of 19.
No one is claiming absolute certainty on climate change. IN 2001 the IPCC report said there is a 65% PROBABILITY that human activity is causing the recent warming; in 2007 the IPCC report bumped that up to a 90% probability. With that, President Bush, long a skeptic, said we should do something about this problem.
The fact remains, hundreds of climate scientist say we have a problem; the evidence has been steadily accumulating over 30 years; now we have the polar sea ice demonstrably shrinking during the summer; the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking demonstrably; glaciers all over the world are melting threatening especialy the poor with decreased access to fresh water; AFrica and other parts of the developing world are facing increasing drought as predicted by climate scientists.
The Catholic Church is right on this one: if there is a reasonable likelihood that our actions are harming others, we are not being morally responsible when we insist on absolute proof before acting to decrease the harm thought to be caused.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Thanks for the response Ken. The list was not meant to be comprehensive or to open the debate on who has a bigger or better list. It was the political/science/religious powers in ages past that kept true science from finding its way. Why do we think that these groups can effectively output good science when they are obviously polluting the data and the decision making process.
It is interesting that words morally responsible keep creeping into this conversation. So C02 is a moral issue? How far will this new morality go? I think that the world is facing greater moral issues today, than creating a moral issue based on the flawed politics, science, and now religious affections of global warming. It is interesting that you would quote the Catholic Church to define a moral issue, when you clearly disagree with them on many other issues they have defined as morally wrong.
I really like how Benjamin ended his post. “…even though I must, at times, land on one side of an issue or another – I resolve to love and to all my under-informed opinions to be changed by both good science and the Good Lord.”
Amen to Ben.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
gem, The words “morally responsible” aren’t just creeping into the conversation, they are the only reason for the conversation. My only interest in climate change is the moral one. If we are harming others by heavy reliance on fossil fuels then it is a moral issue. As the world’s largest Christian church asserts. In citing the Catholic Church I’m trying to say that this is not a moral “fad” as many American evangelicals assert.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Gem, I am glad that you found my words heartening. Now if only I can aspire to them.
Ken, as I pointed out earlier, I am certainly in the category of a skeptic when it comes to man made climate change. But I have no problem being skeptical on the one hand, and making morally responsible environmental decisions on the other. I love the earth. I totally agree that taking care of creation is part of the kingdom mission in which we join God on the earth. So, yes, I think we should try to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Yes, I think we should reduce consumption.
The question I ask, though, is this: Do I have permission to follow science that is skeptical of climate change? Or, in order to show compassion to the earth, do I have to buy it all, hook, line and sinker? Can I do things like vote for senators who want to drill for oil in Alaska and work to improve local parks? Because frankly, the feeling I get, is that if I don’t fall in line on climate change, then I am not really concerned about God’s earth.
I don’t mind people who advocate and protest and promote legislative change based on UN studies on climate change. Most of my friends are like this. I love them. I love that they love the earth. I think they are following God’s heart in this. But I usually keep my mouth shut, because there doesn’t seem to be a loving place for a climate change skeptic in Christian circles that do buy it.
I’d be interested in your take on this, Ken. I get nervous about the pace with which changes and taxes and legislation gets pushed around in the name of climate change. I think the changes are good, I just think that sometimes it is appropriate to think about the economic effects, and consider that some of the changes and taxes might not really be for the benefit of the environment at all.
I’m uncertain if I’m making myself clear. I don’t really have an axe to grind because I don’t possess poignant facts to push. I just don’t want to be thought of as an earth-hater when I doubt the motivations of Al Gore or am suspicious of certain UN sanctioned “studies.”
December 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Ben, Of course you’re allowed!
In fact what you’ve described is the very approach I advocated on the one time I gave a sermon on the topic of climate change. Like you, I agree that there are so many other reasons to do what will also be effective for reducing carbon emissions, that we ought to do those things, regardless of our take on climate science. Simply caring about the environment and understanding what impact something like coal burning power has on health and well being, and wanting to reduce dependence on fossil fuels would go a long distance toward addressing the problems wrought by carbon emissions.
I’m not an expert at all on the legislative side of addressing climate change. I’m more concerned that evangelicals have a history of being suspicious of science dating back to the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century, and this bias in my view,affects how we respond to an issue like climate science.
Once we acknowledge that there may be a serious problem with rising carbon emissions, I would expect spirited debate about how to best respond. The people who accept climate science are all over the map on what do do about it. Thomas Friedman, for example, advocates a carbon tax rather than cap and trade. Other emphasize technological solutions. The current legislation before congress is like any legislation–full of comprimises, patchwork, etc with many grounds for reasoned criticism.
IN your nervousness about the pace of change, keep in mind that the U.S. government hasn’t done anything on this issue until the EPA last year finally updated the mileage standards–after 35 years! I assure you, there are very powerful interests that will keep the U.S. from doing anything precipitous. China, India, and the United States, are powerful voices in the UN and in general these nation-states are very protective of the status quo. As a result, you won’t see much coming out of Copenhagen either.
By the way, the studies that you refer to as UN sanctioned are for the most part independent studies by national goups of scientists. George Bush asked the National Academ of SCiences in the U.S. to closely study the 2001 IPCC report, sponsored by the UN. They affirmed it’s findings. After that, President Bush was reassured. Eventually he said Climate change is a real problem. (He wasn’t a fan of Al Gore or the UN.) The UN is coordinating all the different research being done by many different bodies as the problems call for a global response and there is not other international organization around to do the coordinating. The UN is a very weak body.
Thanks for caring about the enviornment and helping restore the church to a proper understanding of our stewardship responsibility–so clear in the Bible!
December 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Here are things we all know unequivocally:
Global temperatures are rising.
Glaciers are melting around the world.
Ocean temperatures are warmer.
Species’ ranges are shifting.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.
This list could continue, but I’ll stop here to make my point – I say we know these things unequivocally because all of them can be measured and compared to past decades, centuries, and millenia. They are not invalid and they cannot be disregarded. We would say that all of these measurements are correlated. But correlation is not causation. However, the vast majority of scientists argue that they are causally linked, and that humans have a major part to play. This is the science of climate change in a few sentences – we have a bunch of correlated measurements (measurements that are not refuted by any scientists) and our best and brightest scientists tell us that there is a causal relationship between them. Are there scientists who disagree with these interpretations? Yes, and anyone of us can cherry-pick quotations out of context to make it look like there is a serious debate going on – evolution deniers do this all the time. And hypothetically, in a debate, all opinions are of equal value. But practically speaking, this is not how things work at all; certain ideas, being backed by majority opinion, are given the most weight.
Let me give an example that is analogous, in some ways, to what I think is going on in the c
Say you go to your doctor and your doctor tells you that you have cancer and you need treatment A. Being a careful, meticulous person, you go to a second doctor, and he also tells you that you need treatment A. You do this many times and end up with 9 doctors telling you treatment A, and 1 doctor telling you that you’re not sick at all. Who are you going to listen to? Imagine this scenario happening to a close friend, and the friend tells you that they are going with treatment A – are you going to seriously debate them by saying, “but what about that doctor who says you’re not sick?” Of course not – you want your friend to live a long, healthy life, and to get the absolute best treatment, which is the treatment recommended by the majority of doctors.
So why is the climate change “debate” so different? The vast majority of scientists are telling us that these measured changes in our climate are caused by human-influenced emissions. Are there some scientists who disagree? Sure there are, just like that doctor who says you’re not actually sick. But the majority of scientists say that we need treatment A. And is really is a majority – I don’t think any scientist who denies global warming would claim to be part of some silent majority – they recognize that they are in the minority.
So the issue is the health of our planet, rather than the health of a friend. The majority of scientists say the planet is sick, and a minority say its not. What should we do? I think we should recognize that none of us are in a position to really contribute to any debate, and should follow the recommendation of the majority of scientists, rather than letting our hubris dupe us into thinking we know better than they.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
A few thoughts:
1. When my Bible study looked at Genesis, I was struck to notice that the first blessing of creation did not go to humans. Rather, the first blessing went to the living creatures of the waters (1:22). I find this to be evidence that God cares about all of God’s creation, not just humans.
2. Gem says, “If you want to start the consumption debate, then there isn’t a single American that can comment without hypocrisy.” One of the things I find striking as I read the Bible is how everyone other than Jesus is fallible. Noah gets drunk. King David is an adulterer and a murderer. Jesus is constantly rebuking the disciples for their hunger for power, their failure to understand, and their lack of faith. I go to church not because I need to learn “Love the Lord your God,” and “Love your neighbor,” for the first time. I go to church because I already know these things, I fail to live them, I am a hypocrite, and I need the constant reminder and support to fully live what I already know and believe.
3. I find all of this discussion a call to humble action. As Ken has pointed out, he is not a climate scientist, but he has actively questioned those who are. We need to look into the questions with an open mind, but also aware of the limits of our knowledge and aware of our own human fallibility. We must be humble. Yet, even as we are humble, we must take action and make choices. To speak out on one side or the other is a choice. To stay silent is a choice. Knowing the limits of our knowledge, we must still decide how to respond. Ken had made one choice. Joao has made another. May God bless us and guide us as we strive to follow Him.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
chuck, can you be my pastor? I like your style!
December 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
note on clay’s last comment: this is the kind of reasoned, calm, non-hype perspective that I have encountered with the vast majority of scientists familiar with climate science. I find it very compelling. I would just add that the health of the planet is absolutely critical for the health and well being of the humans on the planet, especially those who are poor and therefore less insulated from the natural environment by living in a developed country. We can’t love our neighbors as ourselves and ignore the stress were are putting on the environment that provides for the well being of people, ["not mention the animals" as God said to Jonah, implying that He cares about them too.]
December 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Ken, I do have one question I would like to ask a few ‘climate scientists’. This is not a definitive question that the answer will not ’settle the issue’, but it is a curiosity of mine.
A big fear in global warming is that the Earth has never been this warm while humans have been on it.
I once read that Greenland was named as such because it was green when 1st discovered by Europeans (Vikings, I think, though I know there were ‘native Greenlanders there before).
The story goes that there were Viking settlements there (ruins have supposedly been found) that were eventually abandoned because temperatures began to drop (global cooling?) and the Vikings living there could not adapt, eventually leaving or dying off.
This suggests to me that the world has been warmer than it is today and apparently humanity did just fine, and with less technology. (I don’t think Greenland is green yet.)
Also, it raises the question of what caused it to be so warm then? I assume not Hummers.
So if that story is true and not a hoax, as far as temperature change, it seems to me it’s the change that is a problem, not the actual temperature.
Just a thought.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Ken when you said, “I’m more concerned that evangelicals have a history of being suspicious of science dating back to the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century,” I am not suspicious of science, I’m suspicious of politicians, Hollywood, religious people, etc., who use science to control or advance their agendas.
The information age generation has the biggest carbon footprint in the history of mankind, and they are the most hypocritical judgmental generation ever to burn across the planet. If these are our new morals, then “…you who judge others do these very same things.” While Chuck may think he is a hypocrite, I think he is just a sinner like the rest of us. I prefer to go to a church that is full of sinners, not hypocrites.
The “moral” generation was obviously our parents, they ate at home, read books, didn’t drink bottled water, had one car, no computers, no plastic, maybe one tv, no ipods, no iphones, washed dishes by hand, actually saved money, and the list goes on and on.
Ken, I’m trying, but I am not picking up what you are laying down. Pray for me, I need it…
December 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
gem, couldn’t agree with you more about our parents generation (at least my parents, don’t know how old you are); in fact I did a sermon series based on wisdom from that generation reflected in the bible last year, making the very same point. We need to go back to the future so to speak. On your first paragraph concern: some of the commenters on this blog I know personally, but you are not one of them; so you may know me, but I don’t know who “gem” is. So I’m not asserting that your personal concerns about mainstream science are driven by these historical factors. I’m just saying where my concern comes from. The people I know who are skeptical about science all tend to be evangelical. I can’t name a non-religious person I know who is skeptical.
In my experience, if a person is evangelical, there is a very high likelihood that they are also climate skeptics. I think the polling data bears this out as well. You could be a roman catholic, untouched by the fundamentalist movement, or an evangelical who for some reason isn’t affected by th fundmentalist posture toward science—though it’s a powerful influence in American evangelicalism still. You might a “none of the above” person–I just don’t know. So if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.
One of the great challenges in trying to be more considerate of the environment is how easy it is to be charged with being a hypocrite once one decides to move in that direction–especially if you speak out about the need for it. There is so much that we could/should be doing that we’re not; it’s a thousand and one little habits and we’re embedded in a culture that is designed to use energy in a certain way. I wonder if lots of people don’t want openly advocate for better environmental stewardship because one immediately becomes vulnerable to the hypocrite charge.
Question:do you think you tend to believe the best about those who would identify as environmentalists or not? The tendency, in my experience, is for those who are part of the American Evangelical cultural landscape, is to lean toward not believing the best about those who identify as environmentalists. Some of this lean, is I think, cultural bias, not objective assessment. Do you think that’s a fair observation on my part (not of you, but of AMerican evangelicalism as a movement)
December 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
any real live climate scientists who can answer Joao’s question?
December 18th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Ken, I love science. I like to read books about the great discoveries that led us into the modern era. Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History and Universe in a Nutshell, entertained me, but I understood little. My initials are gem and I attended the A2 vineyard for 7 years. Eventually moved on due to family desires, but always loved the worship and the teachings. I spent time serving as a greeter and working with the media team doing PowerPoint. Married, 3 kids, 21, 17, 14, they all love Jesus. Enough about me…oh, except that I just crossed the half way to a hundred years old threshold.
To answer your question; I love people that have committed their lives to science. I think it is one of the highest callings. I cringe at those that approach the environment from a bias of fear; the earth is coming to an end, etc., because something just seems wrong with that approach. I don’t think people are the problem on earth. I don’t think population is a problem. I think there is plenty of room on the earth for billions more, if we manage it properly.
I think the decisions to fix things should be made from an abundance standpoint, rather than from a lack. Those that would play on our fears, fall into the trap that Mr. Friedman so eloquently explains in his book. I think the environmental movement has almost taken on a mob mentality in some circles.
But the answer is, no I don’t think people are environmentalists are wacked. If they are armchair environmentalists, I would maybe have some hesitation until I found out what their bias was. Does this answer the question?
December 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
OK! and howdy! a kindred spirit science person!…we’re all a product of our experience; you should see some of the emails I get from our creation care for pastors site; I know these tend to be extreme examples, but they are multiple and they betray a very serious distortion of perspective on decent human beings who are environmentalists. And I know many who listen regularly to rush and co. rail on environmentalists with absolute contempt, and I’ve come to know and love many ardent environmental scientists and I hear their stories. I think caring passionately for the creation is a step toward, not away from caring for the creator. I hope you are right about the earth’s capacity to bear billions more–they are on their way which puts even more pressure on our kind to learn how to tread a lot more lightly through the garden than we currently do. God help us to manage (steward) it properly!
December 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Ken, you mentioned China and India’s seeming agreement on global warming data.
Based on their response at Copenhagen, I wonder if their agreement on the science is just their PR strategy and not genuine.
Their actions seem to imply that they really don’t believe in an imminent catastrophe.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Joao, One can pick endlessly at this scab, but those who love the creator and take his book seriously, would do well to err on the side of considerate use not abuse of the creation. We currently err on the other side and it is a great sadness.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 am
thanks for opening this discussion up ken, its been fascinating listening to the whole thing.
just to lay my cards on the table, i’m an evangelical who is pretty convinced that the majority of scientists seem to know what’s going on.
there is one thing i really don’t understand in this whole debate. For the climate change skeptics, what is the basis of your skepticism of climate change? (please don’t tell me “bad science” because that would be denying the obvious truth that the overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced.)
i’m just having a hard time understanding why evangelicals are so committed to the skeptic side. what would be the “cost” or “risk” involved in trusting science, or the world body?
December 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Doug,
I hope I can answer your question. I think the potential “cost” I feel, is in the possibility of giving too much power to government.
I am skeptical of government and politicians, especially when they start throwing around such large sums of money in the name of the “environment.” I am fearful of the power that they will be able to squeeze out of climate change cause.
Although I must admit it is hard for me not to pay attention to all of the science, as well. Some of which can lead to healthy skepticism (which usually is a good thing in scientific fields). I don’t think it is a question of “good science” or “bad science.” Rather, I choose to let my eyes linger on suggestions and temporary conclusions from scientists who may differ from others.
As I wrote earlier, though, this does not make me want to go and trash the environment. I still think that most of the things that are suggested could potentially help stop climate change are good to do regardless. I still think we should recycle. I still think we should use less electricity (as I write my feet are freezing!). I still think we should preserve natural areas and undiscovered species in the Amazon. Yes, we should be putting money into discovering sources of renewable energy. Reasonable hikes in mpg requirements seem wise to me.
The crux of it is, this one issue seems to have become a lightening rod for gathering power from the governments of all the nations. And I shudder to think what could be the result of that.