Subscribe to Posts
how could human activity affect climate?
Even though I live in Ann Arbor I know many people who are skeptical about the climate science that says human activity is heating the planet. Invariably, they are also devout Catholic Christians or Evangelical Christians–these friends of mine.
The culture war that shapes our national conversation on such topics makes it difficult to converse on such matters. We all seem to want to search out confirming voices to create our own echo chambers.
One of the perspectives that most mystifies me is something I hear a lot from those who don’t accept the climate science: that it is a big stretch to think that mere human beings could affect something as massive as the global climate.
Gosh, where does this come from?
Certainly not the Bible. In Genesis, chapter one, humans are given a prominent place in the creation. We are to exercise a form of dominion, or rule. That perspective is not a popular within the secular wing of the environmental movement–which is ironic because environmentalists know that human beings are in fact the dominant species on earth, and environmentists are the strongest advocates for improving our influence. In fact, more than any other group, they are concerned about our rule–as we should all be.
The atmosphere seems massive to us. But if the earth were the size of a volleyball, the atmosphere would be thinner than a coat of varnish covering the volleyball. Check out this photograph of the earth to get a sense of how THIN the entire atmosphere really is, realizing that our climate is the lowest layer of that thin band.
We’re so used to experiencing the earth as a human-dominated planet that we don’t appreciate how profound the human impact really is. Between a third and half of the earth’s land surface has been transformed by human action. The earth’s total plant growth is reduced by 40% by human action.
Growing up in Detroit, I used to think of “the country,” i.e. farmland, as “real nature.” But of course, farmland is a human rearrangement of the surface of the earth at scale. The wildlife that inhabits farmland is drastically reduced compared to the wildlife that inhabits land before it was farmed.
We haven’t been in space very long at all, but the litter we’ve left up there is a serious threat to every satellite orbiting the earth, and much time and attention is devoted to keeping our satellites from being destroyed by flying debris we’ve left behind.
Other examples abound. Merely through our use of aeresol sprays, we increased the size of the ozone hole. When the early science came out on that, the manufacturers of the suspect chemical (CFC’s) where skeptical about the science. They launched a campaign to deny it. But the evidence accumulated, and eventually the United Nations brokered an international agreement that led to the reduction of the use of these chemicals, and the ozone hole is now getting smaller. Crisis averted.
In the 1980’s scientists said our forests were in trouble due to acid rain–the rain was becoming more acidic, thanks to the sulfur dioxide pumped into the atmosphere during the burning of coal at coal burning electricity plants. The utilities were not happy to hear this. But the evidence accumulated and we got together and passed legislation to cap sulfur dioxide emissions. Yes, it was a cap and trade system. It’s been working brilliantly. President George W. Bush actually lowered the cap during his administration ahead of schedule, because it was working so well.
We sometimes forget that the author/s of Genesis 1 were writing after the fall, not before it. By the time Genesis is written, the author knows that humans have not exercised their dominion wisely or well. The command to rule is dripping with irony by this time.
The ancients knew this. They had a sense of our place in the order of creation and our impact for good or ill on the whole of it.
For the past 30 years climate scientists have been increasingly concerned about the climate warming faster then humans (especially poor ones) and many other of God’s creatures adapt to. It’s very complex, and there’s lots of back and forth on the details, but the vast majority of climate scientists are increasingly concerned. In fact, it’s as close to settled as this sort of science is ever going to be. The science, for all it’s complexity, isn’t rocket science. Carbon acts as insulator–no one denies that. There is more carbon in the atmosphere than there used to be–no one denies that. Human activity like burning fossil fuels, is one of many factors that impacts the amount of carbon in the atmosphere–no one denies that.
Yet many Christians in the United States seem predisposed to deny that human activity is helping to warm the planet.
This is not our faith at work in us. This is something else at work in us.
Tags: acid rain, atmosphere, climate, climate change, global warming, ozone hole
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
~
Ken wrote:
“… many people who are skeptical about the climate science that says human activity is heating the planet …”
The “many people who are skeptical” may feel skeptical about many things beyond the formidable complexities of environmental science. Even my naive love for science doesn’t make me blind to the fact that “pure science” (i.e., love for pure scientific discovery) lasts – about 30 seconds. Until politicians find ways to manipulate science. Fermi wasn’t funded by scientific purists. Nor by evangelical preachers.
Skepticism is what skepticism does. Popular skepticism about the “science” of global warming isn’t easily disentangled from extremely healthy skepticism about how pork-barrel politics will manipulate science. Even in the heyday of feel-good environmentalism when science became the poster child for acid rain or deforestation advocacy (science in bed with politics leading to feel-good environmental legislation), the bottom line love-limit for environmentalism always has been NIMBY – not in my back yard – people love the science/environmental/political marriage until the nuclear waste dump is located in their back yard. Love for science – including love for environmental science – is fragile. Fickle. It stops in our back yards.
In short, popular skepticism reflects a visceral feeling that it’s impossible to tell where science ends and politics begins. For example, it doesn’t take graduate level education in order to have a healthy skepticism and wonder whether the Kyoto agreements used global warming as a Machiavellian guise to shift wealth and industry to poor nations. I like the Kyoto efforts. But not enough to be stupid. Not enough to stop asking hard questions.
I recently returned home (Carson/Tahoe) from a Vineyard regional conference in Boise, Idaho. Fun. Inspiring. And impressive. Impressive that so many Vineyard leaders love the environment. And intelligently. Marshaling science to their environmental evangelism. And doing tons of small things too. Pretty cool. The general topic — “For The Sake of the World”– included some pretty nifty science-geek stuff from Tri Robinson. Tri should have worn a plastic pocket protector and thick glasses bound by band-aids to round out the scientist model. He was just too cool to go the full route. Or maybe chicken. Most Vineyardites seemed to have an educated judgment that, a) global warming really is happening and, b) that global warming is catastrophic/parabolic in its accumulating effects (like a tsunami) and, c) that human CO2 effects rev up this catastrophic effect and, d) that changing our political and practical habits might make a difference. Intelligent-love evangelicals. So far, so good.
But, that same Vineyardite crowd (awesome overall) seemed less interested in equally hard questions like, e) whether environmental policies and laws would be enforced uniformly and fairly and, f) whether such policies would (or even could) cause more environmental damage than good and, g) whether there exists any valid metric (science measures, or economic stats) to judge all of this, that is, whether we have hard-science measures to permit a cool-headed assessment of livelihood and economic (“it’s the economy stupid”) costs/benefits of specific environmental policies.
So what?
Feel-good evangelical environmentalism is one thing. Specific laws and environmental polices are the devil – in the details. Many exorcisms are in order. Including exorcizing the demons of over-simplifying insanely complex science. If evangelical preachers dumb-down these latter policy and science questions (“e” through “g” above) by making these issues into feel-good environmentalism or into “we-can-do-it” boosterism, then these preachers may get the dumbed-down crowd of sheep that they create. Skepticism is healthy: for these kinds of issues.
These latter issues are exactly where Vineyardites, agnostics, atheists – and science professors and mom and pop store owners – all fall off the edge of the universe of human understanding. Both mothers and engineers know that a mere linear increase in working parts (say more children or more mechanical parts) results in an exponential increase in complexity (points where love-relationships and mechanical things can break down) inside an engineered system. So what? – so here we are – humans – trying to engineer a specific response from our entire planet?
Popular skepticism is healthy. Natural. Political skepticism is a constitutional mandate. And science skepticism is unavoidable in a science where the “environment” of an ecology can be as small as a dew drop on the underside of a leaf (say for microbial cultures) or as large as an entire planet.
When we fault popular skepticism, say because of the popular misconception that the planet is massive enough to take our punishment, then should be blame George Carlin for his burlesque humor (I love Carlin) in saying the planet will kick our butts no matter what? – or, should we blame the hard core scientist-biologist Lynn Margulis who said, “Gaia [planetary life] is one tough bitch” (life survives countless cosmic bombardments)?
Take your pick. Carlin or Margulis.
I say that popular skepticism may be closer in heart both to Carlin and Margulis at the same time. Because the exponential complexity of environmental science in bed with politics staggers human imagination.
And even if we can’t say all this, or even if we can’t measure skepticism in PPB’s (parts-per-billion), we still feel it.
Skepticism can be mere honesty. A preacher’s best friend.
Cheers,
Jim
August 4th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I am no scientist, but being married to one…and a Meteorologist I have changed my position on the entire global warming/climate change. For a few reasons it does not exist. First, the biggest agenda to get people on board is to make not other options possible. My husband almost lost his certification because he refused to sign an agreement stating he was in support of global warming/climate change human caused. Many other meteorologists faced this same problem. If this wasn’t an agenda, then why is supporting the other side such a threat? Second, I have just returned from Alaska…I walked on many glaciers–yes the glaciers scientists are saying are melting. They are partly true, but not at the rate they make it out to be, for example Exit glacier near Seward, AK has receded more than two miles since 1815, but had it’s fastest melting point in the first 100 years, than the last 90 some years…if this was caused by man…wouldn’t you think with the more carbon emissions and harmful chemicals going into the atomosphere in the last 90 years would be significantly more harmful than before massive industry production and automobiles? Also isn’t it also possible that this glacier along with others needed to melt (God induced) to provide more fresh drinking water for the growing population in the world?
Third, while yes we should reduce the coal burning and all do our part, if this was such a concern don’t you think removing certain chemicals from everyday products and reducing the use of plastics (they release carbon emissions into the air) would both help the climate/environment and save money.
I question people who side with man induced global warming/climate change for the simple fact they usually they seem to be the ones contributing the most. It saddens me when I see people claiming this is an issue, but then use bleach or some other harmful chemical in their home/business or who drink bottled water, or use styrofoam cups/plates etc. All the things have been proven to be bad for the environment. Funny thing is that most of the things that man produces and trashes the environment with, does more harm to his own health than the health of the overall environment. So my question is to those who believe in man made/induced global warming/climate change, what are you doing to reduce those carbon emissions? What is your church doing? Are they really as “green” as they claim to be? For me I am merely a skeptic because I see those proclaiming this agenda doing behaviors/actions opposite of the cause.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Food for thought: (Pun intended!)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926731.700-what-is-your-dinner-doing-to-the-climate.html
August 4th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
What Jim said.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
That you and like minded people keep telling the rest of us this is settled science doesn’t make it settled science. It really isn’t, and the list of those not going along with the ’settled science’ claim is growing, both among the general population and the scientific community.
You say, “This is not our faith at work in us.” “This is something else at work in us.” What do you suggest is at work in us? As a Christian who is a bit skeptical of all this myself, I don’t feel the need to suggest a ‘faith-less’ motive for your view, as if our faith demands we agree on this topic.
August 5th, 2010 at 7:04 am
there is the environment and there is climate… trash and debris is a problem for our oceans… but the science for global warming appears to be rigged. see climate gate: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937
I think many people believe the climate talks are more political than scientific… until the science can be explained in a way that makes sense to everyone, climate talks are dead. there are 6th grade science teachers that see little ’science’ in the science… at this point maybe some advanced statistics… some of the facts vie heard make the carbon argument a bit of a stretch…
August 5th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Brian, I think there is a very high correlation between American evangelicalism and the American political conservative movement. And there is a very high correlation between the American conservative movement and resistance to the climate change science.
I think it is this correlation rather than any intrinsic biblical perspective (on this particular issue) that is at work, when looking at this issue from a big picture perspective. Also, given the roots of American Evangelicalism in the Fundamentalist movement, there tends to be a more conflicted relationship with science in our community. (Going back to the Fundamentalist response to evolution.) Thanks for asking.
August 6th, 2010 at 9:22 am
I am a skeptic about the alarmism and global warming panic that seems to dominate society, for many of the reasons Jim mentioned.
However, my skepticism has little to do with my faith.
I actually am offended by the connection a lot of American Christians make between Christianity and conservatism or Christianity and Capitalism or Christianity and the having to deny science. Neither has anything to do with Biblical Christianity. My dad, for example is a skeptic about parts of the theory of evolution…and it did not originate from his faith.
Case in point on my skepticism of the current global panic…Greenland was called Greenland because it used to be green. So something tells me the world must have been warmer before the industrial revolution, I mean how little the ice caps must have been for Greenland to be green enough to be named as such…and lo and behold, people lived through it, humanity seemed to do just fine.
August 6th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Joao, We don’t seem to be rushing into anything. After 30 years of accumulating evidence, we are only increasing our burning of fossil fuels–only a major recession has been able to slow us down. And the United States, despite recent presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Georg Bush acknowledging that warming is happening and needs to be addressed, has only been able to increase fuel efficiency standards (after, what, 35 years?). So we’re not exactly rushing into anything. I think it would be good to discuss your last paragraph comment with a climate scietist. I can introduce you to one. (No one is saying humanity as a species won’t survive because of the rising temperatures; only that adjusting will be a bear [because it's happening too quickly for the long time frames needed to adjust], and many human lives will be lost due to rising sea levels, increased flooding, increased drought, etc.
One other note: I’m guessing that virtually everyone who has commented on this entry so far comes from an American Evangelical background. And every comment has expressed serious objection to the consensus of climate scientists. (Possible exception from our first commenter?) Coincidence or correlation?
August 6th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Ken, probably because 90% of your blog audience are American Evangelicals.
August 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Scitt, Y’think?
And nothing seems to energize comments like a post on climate change.
August 6th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Ken said,
“One other note: I’m guessing that virtually everyone who has commented on this entry so far comes from an American Evangelical background. …(Possible exception from our first commenter?) Coincidence or correlation?”
It’s coincidence in my case. Maybe it’s why I resonated with the 1st commenter.
August 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Joao, the man who defies the stereotypes!
Ken
August 6th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Humans aren’t doing anything new to the climate. All the carbon in coal and crude oil was once part of some plant or animal, and before that it was in the form of carbon dioxide in the air. In other words, the burning of fossil fuels is simply putting CO2 back into the air where it started. The earth may be warming as a result, but if so it is only returning to a state that it was in at some time in the past. We humans have gotten very used to a particular selection of climates around the globe, and now that we have settled in we don’t want the climate of the earth to ever change.
That said, let’s make a list of all the bad things that could happen as temps rise, and then look to see just what really needs fixing (or preventing). For instance, is it really God’s intention that we prevent every species from going extinct at any cost? We’re losing that battle already on many other fronts (e.g. destroying habitats for development), but it doesn’t seem to capture the attention that climate change does. We all see the pictures of the polar bears with their shrinking ice, and we are told that global warming could eliminate their habitats and they could go extinct. OK, I will agree that that is a bad thing. But is it so bad that we must stop global warming at any cost?
Or how about glaciers receding. OK, so some pretty ice sculpturs disappear, but is that really such a terrible thing? I will probably never see a real glacier, and I’m sure they are nice to see, but is global warming a critical issue to fix for the sake of saving glaciers?
When temperatures rise, so does the prevalence of certain diseases. But at the same time, formerly uninhabitable areas become habitable, and most plants grow more easily in warmer temperatures so there might be more food available. Most importantly, more people die each year from cold rather than heat, so global warming could actually reduce direct temperature-related deaths.
Of course things get more serious when you start talking about two other areas: increases in storm activity (e.g. hurricanes), and increases in sea levels. Regarding storms, this is a difficult one because no one storm can ever to attributed to a global rise in temperature. Moreover, my understanding is that there is no obvious trend in increased storm activity over the last 50 years. It may SEEM like there are more storms, but this could easily be because the media continually bring up global warming every time a serious storm occurs.
Which brings us to rising sea levels, which could flood low-lying areas and put the poorest of the poor in danger. If we are going to be honest about any efforts to reduce the threat of global warming, we must admit that the only truly important reason is this: we want to altruistically help poor folks who live on coastal plains. I completely understand that, and it’s a good goal. But here’s a thought: With all the money it would cost to significantly reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases ($billions), why not instead use that money to relocate poor folks who live on coastal plains? It may sound ridiculous, but it can’t be any more ridiculous than the political roadblocks to curbing emissions of CO2.
August 7th, 2010 at 2:16 am
I have been a skeptic of the whole climate thing for the past thirty years, but I have continued to read and study on it all along.
As you said, Ken, it is not at all difficult to find evidence of significant impact humankind has had on the environment, and ecology of the Earth.
I am still a skeptic to a lot of the notions I read and hear, but I see much of the evidence being offered is valid.
In the area where I live, it is hardly politically correct to even mention the idea that the “climate Change radicals” might have a point.
Most people here declare the idea of Climate change as apostasy.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:49 am
David, Your questions frame the issue falsely. “But is it so bad that we must stop global warming at any cost?” No one is actually proposing that. There is a great concern to limit the cost by all concerned.
“OK some pretty ice sculptures dissapear, is that a problem” No ice sculptures dissapearing is not a such a problem. But reduction in sea ice and glaciers is a big problem, as it speeds up warming further (white ice replaced by dark heat absorbing land), adds to sea level rise (if the melting ice is on land), etc.
“Why not use the money to stop emissions to relocate poor people who live on coastal plains” Of course poor nations with large populations on coastal plains are already making plans, and I suspect they are not hopeful of getting much money from rich nations whose populations tend to either deny there is a problem or minimize it.
And the fact that there are mitigating factors in warming (there are some winners as well as losers) simply reflects the fact that climate is a complex, global system. Those whose life work is to study this have all taken this into account and are still concerned about the net effect.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:57 am
David, One other response on your point about species extinction not being such a concern to God. IT is a concern to the God of the Bible. Humans are called to rule, and our rule is to be in the image of God (see Genesis 1). Our rule is to uphold the purposes of God, which include a vast diversity of life flourishing. We are currently in one of the largest extinctions of geological time. Warming is making it worse. The sea creatures on Day 5 were commanded to multiply and fill the seas. This blessing preceded ours. Our overfishing of many species (and obscene practices like killing sharks to “harvest” their fins for shark fin soup for example, thought to increase virility for wealthy men of means and declining testosterone) etc. is working at cross purposes with that command. We are of course not responsible to stop all species extinction, which as you point out, is a part of nature/creation. But we are responsible to God–answerable to Him in the judgment–to use all our wisdom and skill to work with, not against, his purposes in creation. Consistently in the Bible God shows greater concern for his other creatures than we do.
August 7th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Oh, David, I can’t let your first paragraph stand either. You wrote: “Humans aren’t doing anything new to the climate. All the carbon in coal and crude oil was once part of some plant or animal, and before that it was in the form of carbon dioxide in the air. In other words, the burning of fossil fuels is simply putting CO2 back into the air where it started. The earth may be warming as a result, but if so it is only returning to a state that it was in at some time in the past. We humans have gotten very used to a particular selection of climates around the globe, and now that we have settled in we don’t want the climate of the earth to ever change.”
There is a reason the carbon went from the atmosphere into the ground. Before this happened there wasn’t a hospitable atmosphere for humans. In a sense for our sake, God saw to it that the carbon be sequestered. Had we been more modest in our reversing that by burning the carbon and returning it to the atmosphere, we probably would have been fine. Nature-creation is great at nothing if not adapting. But we’ve been, to put it mildly, excessive, and unwise in not finding alternatives. (Consider the rank air pollution in china due to the burning of coal at massive scale. Consider the fact that fish from Great Lakes can’t be eaten by pregnant women due to mercury levels–from burning coal.)
So it is, in fact, contrary to your first assertion, a major change we are effecting by transfering the carbon from it’s sequestered state to the atmosphere. Yes, no matter how much carbon we continue to pump into the atmosphere, planet earth will survive as will life on earth, including human life. That is not the problem. But the impact to human life, especially the vulnerable poor, not to mention other of God’s creatures, over whom we are meant to exercise rule in the image of the God who lovingly created them, is bad and will get worse. Floods will get worse and droughts. We comfortable Christians in the United States will be the last to suffer. Our brothers and sisters in the global South where revival is happening will be the first to suffer. And our fellow human beings who are poor are suffering and will suffer. The effects will be largely indirect in the sense that warming climate makes other natural problems worse. It will always be possible to say, “Well, droughts and floods happen, this one is not caused by global warming.” All very convenient for the comfortable. Snore.
August 8th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
You make strong, if not convincing, cases, and I promise to consider them (it helps not to respond too quickly!). But it’s not clear where some of your points of view really come from, and whether they are assumptions or based on something more substantial.
Like the idea that there wasn’t a hospitable environment for humans earlier in the geologic history of the earth. Never heard that one before. Is there some sort of scientific basis for that? Or is it instead simply a deduction from the idea that humans did not live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Maybe it’s true, but it would surprise me. Humans have adapted to some pretty extreme environments, both hot and cold.
I have to agree with you that God has charged us to care for his creation, and clearly that includes animals. One might reasonably conclude from that general idea that we are also charged with ensuring that we should do everything in our power to care for and protect animals. While not disagreeing, I also can’t fit this idea with God’s charge to eat animals if we choose to do so, and to sacrifice them. If it is “OK” for animals to die in these contexts, would it not be OK for animals to die for the benefit of humans in other ways? What about hunting for pleasure? And the extreme (though indirect) example: animals dying so that we can continue to use fossils fuels. I know I sound incindiary, but that’s not really my goal. Yes, if we can use less fossil fuels, and save some animals as a result, there really isn’t a good argument against doing so. But then, we could also all become vegetarians and also save lots of animals.
I must disagree with you on one point, however. There are many people who do, in fact, propose that we fix global warming at any cost. Maybe you don’t, maybe others reading this forum don’t, but it seems to be the prevailing opinion among the most vocal proponents of action. I happen to work on programs specifically designed to address global warming, and I work with many people who have worked on crafting various programs (cap and trade, low carbon fuel standards, carbon taxes, etc). If I point to the many, many provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and I suggest to them that we have done quite a bit, I get pretty strong negative reactions. In essence, they tell me that nothing will satisfy them except major reductions in CO2 emissions that bring us back to 1990 emission levels within the next 10 years. They know the costs (huge, by the way, and affecting every consumer in very significant ways), but they basically ignore those costs. Our economy is based on fossil fuels, and any dramatic and sudden shift away from fossil fuels could wreak havoc. We need a slow and steady change, for our own sake. This is why I argue for more research funds and grant money for new technologies and I argue against cap and trade. But the diehards don’t want to hear that.
So, bottom line, I don’t raise the question of “Is it really so bad?” because I think we should do nothing. I raise it because extreme actions tend to fail in the political realm anyway, and I feel rather strongly that a slow and steady pace of advancements is much more likely to be successful.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Ken,
‘Joao, the man who defies the stereotypes!’
Just don’t like to be pigeon-holed and now seemingly made fun of… I know plenty of non evangelicals who also would agree with Jim.
Folks who like science, who live by science, who would be offended if referred to as evangelicals, who are engineers and have no issue with science whatsoever and yet, when faced with both sides of the issue find themselves unable to drink the entire jar of coolaid that is being served in the main stream media.
Is there room for disagreement in this debate?
August 9th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Jaoa, My bad, that was not at all intended to have made fun of you. (I actually think you do defy stereotypes, but something else obviously came through–clumsy communication on my part.) And I do think there is plenty of room for debate. I would agree that there would be plenty of people including engineers who would question the science. Especially those in industries that rely directly on fossil fuels (all industries rely on fossil fuels since the whole society does.) But especially engineers in oil & gas, utilities, and auto. As the science of climate change is saying we need to be more intentional about decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal, and to a lesser extent oil. The implications are more acutely unsettling for people with jobs in those industries for sure, and the leaders of those industries have been cautious at best at embracing the implications of the science (e.g. Lutz at GM, etc.) Political leaders who get a lot of support from those industries (e.g. Dingell and Levin) have also been more reluctant to support efforts to reduce carbon (while acknowledging the need in theory.) So I do a agree with you that there is a lot of resistance to and questioning of climate science among those who are unaffected by religious sensibilities.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:04 am
David, I sincerely appreciate your openness to considering my thoughts. On the issue of a pre-existing climate inhospitable to humans. I think that is well established science, disputed only by those who have an interpretation of Genesis 1-3 that requires them to think the earth is young (e.g. 6-10,000 years old.) Billy Graham, by the way did not have this view and specifically said that Genesis 1-3 should not be read as though it were science and that it was not incompatible with the modern scientific view.
On the biblical view of our relationship to other creatures created by God. While there is permission for humans to eat meat, it is a concession; it the beginning, it was not so. And limits are placed on it, intended to reinforce respect for the life of animals. The species of other creatures that are used for meat is exceedingly small in number. Vast bio-diversity is not threatened by a responsible use of meat for food. Of course it can be abused: our near extinction of the bison, for example, and our fishing practices that are driving many fish to extinction. The the biblical charge to humanity to rule as stewards in creation, as a part of our being in the image of God who created all creatures and cares for them (often, in the Bible as we do not–e.g. provisions in the Law of Moses to care for animals far exceed PETA demands) leans very strongly toward a much higher standard of concern than we currently are living up to. A quickly (relative to geologic time frames) warming planet is a major driver of animal extinction rates.
One would think that humans functioning in their “image bearing” status of the creator and sustainer of all living things, would mean that humans were meant to be a blessing, not the reverse. If sin, selfishness, and greed were not so rampant among our species, surely other species would be better off than they are. I just don’t know how one can read the Bible without drawing this conclusion.
Anecdotaly, when discussing the effects of climate change with evangelicals who are suspicious of environmental concern in genera, the impact on other creatures is something that is not at all compelling. One has to stress the impact on humans with AMerican evangelicals. But if we were formed by a biblical perspective, we would be much more concerned about both impacts of environmental degradation in general and climate change.
August 9th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Still sounds like an argument for Christians to be vegetarians.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
David.
Vegetarians? Let’s see…didn’t Jesus appear to Peter in a dream, showed him animals and said…’kill and eat’? I know the point was that Jews did not have to be kosher any more, but the fact stands that Jesus himself had no proble with eating animals, plus, weren’t a lot of the apostles fishermen? Didn’t Jesus eat fish? How about the passover lamb?
Sounds like He had no issues with it…
Of course, all things in moderation, but no prohibitions.
August 10th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Well, I’m not the sort of person to just read the Bible and accept things at face value. I always want to know why. It’s part of how I grow. I want to know the mind of God, not just copy His behavior.
August 10th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
God is too big for my tiny brain. I am content with just copying His behavior.:)
August 11th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
As an aspiring climate scientist, and one who will hold a Master’s degree within a few months, I felt a need to inject some scientific reasoning into the debate. I don’t wish to bash on climate change skeptics (I was one for many years), but rather put some information out there.
First let me say that it’s hard to convey hard facts in a strict manner without referring to scientific texts and literature (which I’m sure no wants to read!). For that reason, I’ll fall back on anecdotal evidence, but for something more concrete, feel free to e-mail me: jon.rutz@utah.edu.
I want to touch on the intensity of weather events. A warmer world leads to more extreme weather, in a nutshell, because heat is energy. All weather phenomena, including storms, are driven by energy – some by energy itself (hurricanes) and some by gradients in energy (winter storms, tornadoes, etc…) As the planet warms, the potential for both higher absolute amounts of energy and greater energy contrasts increases. Following this, so does storminess.
Next a word about U.S. impacts: they’re here and here to stay for a long time. A common practice in meteorology is to compare daily weather to climatological norms. This is turning into a joke, and serious meteorologists know it. When this is done, over periods of YEARS the “differences from climatology” are 2-3 degrees above normal! Why? Because the rate of climate change is outpacing our datasets regarding “climate.” Quite incredible really… our 1960-1990 “averages” simply don’t apply anymore.
Does the urban heat island effect have some impact? Yes, but it can’t account for the trends we’re seeing.
What about Washington D.C. getting record snow last year? It wasn’t just El Nino – special atmospheric conditions developed involving another feature (the Arctic Oscillation) hitting it’s lowest index since recording it began. Without getting overly technical, there is reason to believe the behavior of this index is tied to global warming and the increased storminess mentioned above.
There’s a lot more worth saying, but I’m not sure where to focus efforts at the moment, so that’s all for now.