More on Climate Change
In my last Plumbline I told some stories about people I had encountered who were adamantly opposed to the very notion of global warming and human involvement in it. In each case the reasons were pretty superficial or even ridiculous. Today I want to try to express as fairly as I can the serious reasons people give for being indifferent to global warming. I want to be fair to them, but I also will try to refute those reasons. As I listen to and read the arguments of those opposed to the idea of human involvement in global warming, I encounter two main arguments, one has to do with science and the other with business and lifestyle.
First, the area of business and lifestyle. For those who have a strong commitment to capitalism, the “free” market system, and the lifestyle that we associate with this system, a war against CO2 emissions will be perceived negatively. Why? Because, they say, it will have a negative effect on American business. That’s why organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Acton Society so actively oppose the notion of human involvement in global warming. That’s why wealthy oil companies engage in disinformation campaigns, intentionally spreading half truths about carbon emissions. (And there is documented evidence of this kind of behavior.)
It’s probably true that an all out war against CO2 emissions will hurt business. To cut down on CO2 emissions, people will have to consume less, that is, buy fewer and smaller cars, fewer carpets, fewer toys, fewer TVs, fewer clothes—fewer manufactured goods of all kinds because most manufacturing processes produce CO2 emissions. We all know the slogan with the three R’s, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” And the R that is virtually impossible for us to do is “Reduce.” We are a culture that loves the new, loves to buy. And many see this love of buying stuff as a good thing since the success of our economic system depends on the ever increasing consumption of consumer goods. That’s why the Dow shoots up when the consumer spending goes up or housing starts go up. But fossil fuel consumption is at the core of the manufacturing process, and fossil fuel consumption, according to a majority of climate scientists causes global warming.
So, one way to avoid facing the hardship of sacrifice is to deny that climate change is a problem or that our use of fossil fuels contributes to it. Then life as we know it can go on as we want it to; you can buy all the toys you want and I can travel to any exotic spot on the globe. One young man who listened to my first Plumbline on this issue said to me, “I think I deny the possibility of humans’ contributing to climate change by their lifestyle because I don’t really want to change how I live. If I deny there’s a problem, I don’t have to do anything about it.”
This takes me to my second focus point of debate, science. Now most of us are not scientists and we find the science of climate change too complex for our own analysis. A large majority of climate scientists around the world argue that the earth is getting warmer and the warming is caused by Co2s and Methane produced by human activity. Let’s call this the majority opinion. But there are also minority opinions. A small number of scientists in this group argue that the earth is not getting warmer. Most minority scientists agree it is getting warmer but that we do not know what causes it. Some argue that the warming will not have negative consequences and ask why we should worry. One of the most distinguished from this minority group, Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, says this: “We are quite confident that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees warmer than it was a century ago; that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth. But we are not in a position to attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” In other words, he argues we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements about the current situation or the future.
So the question becomes which scientists shall we listen to, those of majority opinion who argue that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by Co2s produced largely by human activity or those of the minority opinion as I have described above.
I suspect that in many cases we will trust the scientists who have a worldview that closely fits with our own. So, if you are one who holds the free market as very dear, and you don’t want your free market rights or lifestyle abridged by new taxes and weighted down with regulations, you will probably embrace those scientists who assert that global warming is not caused by human activity. I don’t think this always happens consciously; often it happens subconsciously and we are not even aware of our motives.
And if you are one who believes that stewardship and care of the creation is one of the primary tasks God has given to humans or if you are a thoroughly secular environmentalist, you will likely support the majority opinion.
This raises another key element in one’s worldview, the religious.
If you are a Christian, you might say, (whether you support the majority or the minority opinion) I want to hear what the Christian scientists say on the matter. I think we can ask this question as long as we recognize that sometimes the very best scientists are not Christians. Common Grace operates here as in all other areas of life. But having acknowledged this, I must also acknowledge that there are probably Christian scientists on both sides of the issue. Which ones shall we believe? It seems to me the best answer to that is that we should trust those who are the best, most highly regarded climate scientists.
We can ask, as a minimum, that they publish in journals that are juried and that they are recognized and respected by the larger scientific community for their scientific work. In my reading I have not encountered Christian climate scientists who support the minority opinion that meet these criteria, though I suppose there might be some. But I know a number of Christians who support the majority opinion. I will mention two.
Sir John Houghten, knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1991, was co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Assessment Committee. He also served as Director General of Britain’s Meteorological Office, and Chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He has received the prestigious Japan prize for his lifetime work on Climatology, the Royal Astronomical Society’s Gold Medal, and the International Meteorological Organization Prize. He is, without a doubt, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world.
But Houghton is as well-known for his Christian faith as he is for his science. In checking a number of biographical references to Houghton, I was pleased to discover that almost the first thing mentioned about Houghton is his strong Christian faith. Here is the second sentence of the Wikopedia bio: He was brought up as a Calvinistic Methodist in the Presbyterian Church of Wales and “has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism.”
Like most Reformed scholars, Houghton believes that science and religion, rather than being in conflict, actually complement each other. “There’s a widespread suspicion of science, fostered by the feeling that science goes against the Bible,” says Houghton. “This is very unfortunate; it takes a small view of God and a very inadequate view of science.”
Well, I will have more on Houghton in my final Climate Change Plumbline. But I want also to mention a scientist of the majority view who was, at least until recently, a local citizen. Dr. Douglas Allen is a scientist whose training is in atmospheric physics. He has worked in research at NASA’s Goddard Space flight center in Chicago and has published extensively on climate related issues. While he taught at Dordt, he also went out into the community and spoke on the issue of climate change. In fact, his presentations two years ago at my church were for me highlights of the adult Sunday school program. I knew him as a colleague and found him to be a humble, pious, upright man of God. But, of course, he is also a man of science. And thank God that is no contradiction.
First, the area of business and lifestyle. For those who have a strong commitment to capitalism, the “free” market system, and the lifestyle that we associate with this system, a war against CO2 emissions will be perceived negatively. Why? Because, they say, it will have a negative effect on American business. That’s why organizations like the American Enterprise Institute and the Acton Society so actively oppose the notion of human involvement in global warming. That’s why wealthy oil companies engage in disinformation campaigns, intentionally spreading half truths about carbon emissions. (And there is documented evidence of this kind of behavior.)
It’s probably true that an all out war against CO2 emissions will hurt business. To cut down on CO2 emissions, people will have to consume less, that is, buy fewer and smaller cars, fewer carpets, fewer toys, fewer TVs, fewer clothes—fewer manufactured goods of all kinds because most manufacturing processes produce CO2 emissions. We all know the slogan with the three R’s, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” And the R that is virtually impossible for us to do is “Reduce.” We are a culture that loves the new, loves to buy. And many see this love of buying stuff as a good thing since the success of our economic system depends on the ever increasing consumption of consumer goods. That’s why the Dow shoots up when the consumer spending goes up or housing starts go up. But fossil fuel consumption is at the core of the manufacturing process, and fossil fuel consumption, according to a majority of climate scientists causes global warming.
So, one way to avoid facing the hardship of sacrifice is to deny that climate change is a problem or that our use of fossil fuels contributes to it. Then life as we know it can go on as we want it to; you can buy all the toys you want and I can travel to any exotic spot on the globe. One young man who listened to my first Plumbline on this issue said to me, “I think I deny the possibility of humans’ contributing to climate change by their lifestyle because I don’t really want to change how I live. If I deny there’s a problem, I don’t have to do anything about it.”
This takes me to my second focus point of debate, science. Now most of us are not scientists and we find the science of climate change too complex for our own analysis. A large majority of climate scientists around the world argue that the earth is getting warmer and the warming is caused by Co2s and Methane produced by human activity. Let’s call this the majority opinion. But there are also minority opinions. A small number of scientists in this group argue that the earth is not getting warmer. Most minority scientists agree it is getting warmer but that we do not know what causes it. Some argue that the warming will not have negative consequences and ask why we should worry. One of the most distinguished from this minority group, Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, says this: “We are quite confident that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees warmer than it was a century ago; that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth. But we are not in a position to attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” In other words, he argues we don’t have enough information to make pronouncements about the current situation or the future.
So the question becomes which scientists shall we listen to, those of majority opinion who argue that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by Co2s produced largely by human activity or those of the minority opinion as I have described above.
I suspect that in many cases we will trust the scientists who have a worldview that closely fits with our own. So, if you are one who holds the free market as very dear, and you don’t want your free market rights or lifestyle abridged by new taxes and weighted down with regulations, you will probably embrace those scientists who assert that global warming is not caused by human activity. I don’t think this always happens consciously; often it happens subconsciously and we are not even aware of our motives.
And if you are one who believes that stewardship and care of the creation is one of the primary tasks God has given to humans or if you are a thoroughly secular environmentalist, you will likely support the majority opinion.
This raises another key element in one’s worldview, the religious.
If you are a Christian, you might say, (whether you support the majority or the minority opinion) I want to hear what the Christian scientists say on the matter. I think we can ask this question as long as we recognize that sometimes the very best scientists are not Christians. Common Grace operates here as in all other areas of life. But having acknowledged this, I must also acknowledge that there are probably Christian scientists on both sides of the issue. Which ones shall we believe? It seems to me the best answer to that is that we should trust those who are the best, most highly regarded climate scientists.
We can ask, as a minimum, that they publish in journals that are juried and that they are recognized and respected by the larger scientific community for their scientific work. In my reading I have not encountered Christian climate scientists who support the minority opinion that meet these criteria, though I suppose there might be some. But I know a number of Christians who support the majority opinion. I will mention two.
Sir John Houghten, knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1991, was co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Assessment Committee. He also served as Director General of Britain’s Meteorological Office, and Chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He has received the prestigious Japan prize for his lifetime work on Climatology, the Royal Astronomical Society’s Gold Medal, and the International Meteorological Organization Prize. He is, without a doubt, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world.
But Houghton is as well-known for his Christian faith as he is for his science. In checking a number of biographical references to Houghton, I was pleased to discover that almost the first thing mentioned about Houghton is his strong Christian faith. Here is the second sentence of the Wikopedia bio: He was brought up as a Calvinistic Methodist in the Presbyterian Church of Wales and “has remained a strong Christian throughout his life and sees science and Christianity as strengthening each other and believes strongly in the connection between Christianity and environmentalism.”
Like most Reformed scholars, Houghton believes that science and religion, rather than being in conflict, actually complement each other. “There’s a widespread suspicion of science, fostered by the feeling that science goes against the Bible,” says Houghton. “This is very unfortunate; it takes a small view of God and a very inadequate view of science.”
Well, I will have more on Houghton in my final Climate Change Plumbline. But I want also to mention a scientist of the majority view who was, at least until recently, a local citizen. Dr. Douglas Allen is a scientist whose training is in atmospheric physics. He has worked in research at NASA’s Goddard Space flight center in Chicago and has published extensively on climate related issues. While he taught at Dordt, he also went out into the community and spoke on the issue of climate change. In fact, his presentations two years ago at my church were for me highlights of the adult Sunday school program. I knew him as a colleague and found him to be a humble, pious, upright man of God. But, of course, he is also a man of science. And thank God that is no contradiction.
Comments
Post a Comment