God's Global Control

Our 10/13/12 post on “Global Warming and Evolution Conjoined” (particularly anthropogenic global warming) details a recent movement to link two controversial scientific theories.  We characterize our reference to global warming theory as an alarmist view of significant temperature rise, unprecedented weather disasters, disastrous sea level rise, and fatal consequences for many of earth’s life forms. Both theories generate significant disagreement among professional scientists. The disagreement spills over to the public who are forced to take sides.

Non-scientists are often confused by the disagreement. Adherents of both theories sometimes accuse deniers and skeptics of disrespect for science itself. In reality, the disagreement among scientists is a symptom of science working in a healthy manner. Among both the science profession and the public, this accusation amounts to intimidation. If we oppose evolution or anthropogenic global warming theories, do we betray or oppose science? Most emphatically, we do not. There are many areas of investigation in science about which the answers to questions posed are not clearly evident. Evolution and climate science are unmistakably in this category for many different reasons.

Cause and effect relationships are difficult to pin down. In the case of evolution the genetic relationship between living things is obvious, but the reality of the genetic similarity does not necessarily signal common ancestry driven by a dubious naturalistic process. The biological community has been programmed to accept a naturalistic scenario and to reject the likely possibility that living creatures, including man, were front-loaded miraculously by an incredible infusion of coded genetic information. Elaborate evolutionary theory is highly saturated with the current science philosophy that science deals only with natural causations. Embrace of this philosophy leaves no room for any view but one: “Evolution is good science. In fact, evolution is the only science to explain origins.”

Climate science, with its prominent appendage of global warming theory, is driven by a somewhat different philosophy. The community of climate scientists is motivated strongly by environmental concerns. Of course, concern for the earth’s environment is a noble thing. Research demonstrates that many climatologists tend to ignore or understate alternate hypotheses of the dozens of complex factors impacting our climate, including the exceedingly well-known climate oscillations during and prior to human history. Carbon dioxide has been labeled a pollutant and receives the lion’s share of blame for projected damage to our earth, a fragile proposal in the view of many brilliant climate scholars opposed to global warming theory.

This blog has focused on the connection between science and faith. We trust our science conclusions are driven by the best historic traditions of science and motivated by knowledge that scientific method has its roots in principles of scripture. In like manner, we are confident our theology is sound and orthodox. In this spirit we have proposed that the theory of evolution as proposed both by naturalistic and theistic evolutionists fails to conform with the traditional rendering of sudden sequential creation events  over time according to the Hebrew term bara--something created, but not existing before. In particular, the term relates to the creation of humans.

Earth’s climate system and weather phenomena are a source of human blessing and awe. It is man’s responsibility to care for and subdue (bring under control) the earth, including making use of its many fossil resources to benefit humanity. Abuse of earth’s resources is not sanctioned. The Cornwall Alliance has issued a vibrant statement of belief about our God-created planet: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.” Enlightened knowledge of our earth system powerfully affirms this truth.

The campaign to aggressively promote the theory of evolution, together with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, is of questionable value for the Christian. Our campaign should be to aggressively discover the truth about human origins and climate science. Truth is significantly more difficult to discover than promotion of an agenda-driven, naturalistic philosophy. When genuine discoveries are made to augment our knowledge of the truth, we must humbly accept them as God-ordained. 

Global Warming and Evolution Conjoined

In 2007 the logo for NCSE (National Center for Science Education) was redesigned. It featured an original sketch by Charles Darwin depicting his concept of the tree of life. NCSE is unabashedly oriented toward promoting evolution in our educational system. Their efforts in this area may be characterized as militant and extensive. Their science education dimension, described by NCSE as “The Nature of Science,” assumes a distant back seat in their classroom. The primary mission of NCSE is to promote evolution and another issue currently acquiring equal importance for them. Under their logo is this statement: Defending the Teaching of Evolution and Climate Science. The conjoining of these two topics produces an interesting marriage.

Evolution has been promoted by secondary science educators for over a half-century. Around 1960, the National Science Foundation supported the development of the BSCS (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study), partly to reclaim the perception of lost ground in US public science education following the crisis produced by Russian science and technology advances. During the 1950s, my sophomore high school biology instruction stressed anatomy and scientific classification of living things along with basic physiology. While many biologists believed in evolution, the teaching of evolutionary theory was practically non-existent. It took a back seat in our classrooms.

Classroom biological topics could be considered to have their foundation in more traditional scientific method prior to the pivotal discoveries of the 1960s. Hypotheses were advanced to explain observed common phenomena, but grand and creative theories were not in evidence. Not many topics in secondary school biology content were controversial, but nevertheless, change was underway.

Beginning in 1960 evolutionary theory began to be ascendant. The theory of “molecules to man” evolution developed as a conceptual framework of life origins and began to be advertised as consistent with all known data. Much of the data originated in our newly discovered genetic knowledge of DNA and RNA. The genetic code was cracked in the 1960s and seemed to unify biology educators’ concepts of the secrets of life. Observations of the diversity of living forms together with the progression of the fossil record joined the newly discovered genetic discoveries and seemed to support Darwin’s 100-year-old revolutionary and evolutionary idea. Most life science educators were only too happy to endorse evolution on this basis.

Turning to climate science, we note that no single discovery in climate science could match the impetus evolution had been accorded in our educational system. It had long been known that earth began to warm somewhat beginning about 1850. Much more data gradually became available about slow changes in our climate during the past 160 years. More scientists began to note the warming phase we seemed to be entering. A few researchers raised questions about the warming climate and a few raised the possibility that warming was anthropogenic. Global warming, however, was low on the educational radar screen.

Evolutionary theory began to be popular in our secondary classrooms following the era of the Russian Sputniks. That theory was presented as the “sum total of established thought which was consistent with all data.” The latter quote is a popular definition of a scientific theory.  Earlier emphasis on anatomy, physiology, and classification (taxonomy) did not lend itself to development of the grand theory “molecules to man evolution” was turning out to be.

Lately there is a new kid on the block in secondary science education. It is called climate science and is powerfully energized by the concept of anthropogenic global warming. Some school districts already struggle with their desire to teach students the scientific controversy concerning global warming. The national Common Core Standards Initiative is working to formulate national science standards for the first time in fifteen years. Some science education groups are working diligently to incorporate broad climate change topics into the curricula. The disagreements are reminiscent of school district disputes over evolution beginning several decades ago and continuing to this day.

Recently the influential NCSE, whose executive director is Eugenie Scott, published this statement: “In 2012, in response to teachers that they were coming under fire for teaching global warming and other climate change concepts, NCSE decided to support the teaching of climate change in addition to evolution. Both evolution and climate change are well-accepted by scientists as being based on sound research, but the percentages of members of the public accepting these sciences is sharply lower. There are organizations dedicated to decreasing the acceptance and teaching of evolution and/or climate change: another parallel. NCSE has decades of experience helping teachers cope with political and other pressures against the teaching of evolution; we believe this experience is transferable to the problems involved in the teaching of climate change.”

Research into these topics would be overwhelming for most Christian laypersons who desire simple answers to complex problems. The first complex problem we mention is that since the breaking of the genetic code in the 1960s, our knowledge of life, its wonder, and its complexities has proliferated geometrically. Questions on evolutionary theory are not settled by “the sum total of established thought consistent with all data.” Even scientists who believe in evolution acknowledge that science does not operate this cleanly. Discoveries in biological science have raised significant questions about the strength of evolutionary theory, much to the dismay of evolutionists who steadfastly hold to their naturalistic worldview.

Climate scientists who claim majority support for anthropogenic global warming from the population of climate scientists they cite may recognize the controversies about global warming conclusions are, indeed, worthy of their attention. The frequent citation of consensus on this issue is a subject of unease, given the acknowledged agenda-driven quality of the subject. Analysis drives us to a renewed analysis of errors of reasoning and how those errors impact our conclusions. Scripture deals with questions of origins. It also addresses questions of significant weather phenomena, including storms in the Holy Land and Middle East. We must not discount inerrant scripture as it comments on both questions.

Weather Disasters and Global Warming

Older people enjoy telling the most memorable weather events from their early childhood. My personal favorite is the 1947 snowstorm in central New York which closed school in that Snow Belt for a solid week and drifted our country road shut with drifts well over the height of the plow blades. I personally recall my older uncles telling of the horrific dust bowl days of the 1930s where drought scorched the land, top soil blew away, and where summer heat for several years reached triple digits on multiple days. For this post’s introduction, we will point out that nothing in the 80 intervening years has matched such extended drought and heat, including the drought and heat wave of 2012.

Memorable weather events are embedded within long period conditions of temperature, humidity, air pressure, wind, and precipitation over extensive climate regions. These are sometimes known as weather regimes. Humorously, we may compare weather to climate by contrasting individual crops growing in a large garden with the entire garden itself. Each crop in the garden contributes to the totality of the entire garden much like individual blizzards, drought events, or hurricanes contribute to the totality of regional climate over long time frames.

Modern journalists reporting on unusual or severe weather incidents sometimes conflate weather events with climate change. In particular, many contemporary writers having global warming agendas cannot resist blaming unusual weather events on purported man-induced global warming. Weather events deemed unusual, violent, or destructive, need a cause for their effects. This is especially true if the reporter is motivated by a popular “cause.” Writers of museum display texts sometimes fall prey to this tendency, but we do not demean the wonderful value of quality museum instruction.

Scientists are vulnerable to errors in reasoning as are professionals in every field of knowledge. Many errors of reasoning abound. In the currently popular subject of climate change, we may identify common reasoning fallacies. If A precedes B, then B must have been caused by A: If fossil fuel use increases before global warming occurs, global warming effects result from increased carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel burning, according to the claim. Another commonly used fallacy is termed “oversimplified cause.” The complexity of weather events is blamed on one cause when multiple causes are needed to explain the phenomenon. The “domino fallacy” asserts a chain of devastating effects flow from one cause without providing supporting evidence.

The welfare of our home on Planet Earth is a cause of monumental importance and enormous human interest. Perceptions of damage to our global abode understandably generate vigorous discussion of effects and causes. The force of public argument generated is understandable. Epic topics like global warming share their level of importance with the fervor of supporting argument. The most effective arguments are needed to support the case, but extravagant potential for faulty reasoning exists.

Judith Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology. She has stated, “Climatologists should be more transparent with the public and should engage with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.” Curry details her journey toward a reasoned, well-researched stance casting doubt on the strident positions of advocates of human-caused warming. Here is a statement she provided to a Yale360 Forum on the topic of the links between extreme weather events and global warming:

The substantial interest in attributing extreme weather events to global warming is the perceived need for some sort of disaster to drive public opinion and the political process in the direction of taking action on climate change. However, attempts to attribute individual extreme weather events, or collections of extreme weather events, may be fundamentally ill-posed in the context of the complex climate system, which is characterized by spatiotemporal chaos. There are substantial difficulties and problems associated with attributing changes in the average climate to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing, which I have argued are oversimplified by the IPCC assessments. Attribution of extreme weather events is further complicated by their dependence on weather regimes and internal multi-decadal oscillations that are poorly simulated by climate models.

I (Curry) am unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing. Improved analysis of extreme weather events requires a substantially improved and longer database of events.

Research on extreme historic weather events provides startling revelations which could refute the modern enthusiasm for the connection between weather disasters and purported anthropogenic global warming. Local newspapers frequently offer lengthy lists of severe local weather events going back decades whenever the news of the most recent disaster is reported. Readers usually cannot recall the events even if they have lived in the area a long time.

With the disclaimer that the following list does not prove anything, the following historic weather events are cited as food for thought. (1) Acts 27 recounts a horrific 14-day storm at sea suffered by the Apostle Paul on one of his missionary journeys. The storm, termed “Euroclydon” in the KJV, caused the destruction of Paul’s ship. It may have rivaled violent hurricanes in the Atlantic and Caribbean. (2) Centuries later the “Great Hurricane of 1780 claimed 25000 lives and was one of three exceptionally strong hurricanes during that decade. (3) The mile-wide tri-state tornado of 1925 claimed 695 lives and ravaged Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana for 3½ hours over a distance of 219 miles, the longest single tornado track on record worldwide. (4) The Mississippi River flood of 1927 was the most destructive river flood in United States history. Each of the events occurred long before climatologists of the last decade began to spread the gospel of anthropogenic weather disasters.

Climate change is generally considered a topic church leaders entrust to the knowledge of science specialists. Some Christian organizations have taken remedial action based on controversial findings. Many other topics of Christian concern are linked to science and to the expertise provided by scientists. Such topics include earth history, evolution (origins), and health to name a few. It is vital that church leaders and laypeople alike be well served by secular science experts. But we must be certain their science interpretations are trustworthy. If climate scientists disagree, laypersons and theologians alike must devote themselves to the discovery of truth. We must wisely care for the marvelous planet God has entrusted to man. Our environmental stewardship is an important part of the outworking of our Christian worldview.

Climate of Disagreement

Evolution continues as a lively “red meat” discussion topic both within and outside the church. The long running controversy over the extent of evolution of earth’s life forms, however, may be taking a back seat to the newest, modern scientific controversy. The National Center for Science Education and other secular education groups are arming themselves to fight for public school acceptance of global warming within the curriculum as part of the current national science core standards initiative.  Climate change, sometimes also perceived under the heading “global warming,” has recently displaced evolution as the controversy du jour. Advocates for anthropogenic global warming and activist anthropogenic solutions for it have been mobilizing their forces at various levels.

Under cover of the claim that the climate change issue has been scientifically settled by the consensus of the scientific community, there is powerful pressure being brought to bear on our population to accept the reality and the remedies. Such a conclusion is not merely a minor quarrel. The issue has wide ranging significance for our society in terms of our perceptions of and attitudes toward Planet Earth and the care of its delicate and beautiful systems. In this sense, these matters should be elevated in importance for people of all persuasions, particularly those communities who take pride in their Christian worldview.

There is considerable danger securing ourselves within a shelter of apathy. The more depth with which we study the issue, the more apparent is the cause for alarm. Among the high stakes is the public perception of science itself. The drumbeat from those who claim this powerful issue is settled rolls with high volume. They claim the scientific consensus driving the global warming issue is obvious and our collective action plan, therefore, is apparent. Deniers and skeptics are often cast as errant and agenda driven. Serious errors lurk behind these oft-repeated claims, including the errors and agendas of global warming enthusiasts.

Science does not work so cleanly. In particular, science does not work when the web of interrelated questions and possible models of reality are so complex and difficult. In the early days of the scientific revolution questions about the manifestations of gravity and formulas to describe it were accessible through the majesty and predictability of mathematics. There is an irony when we consider that physics is sometimes called a “simple science.” The understanding of physics depends on scientists’ ability to reduce everyday phenomena to “simple” mathematics. Many people may joke about their high school physics courses not being very “simple.”

In reality, as we study climate science it becomes obvious that we are not dealing with “simple science.” (The physical sciences are known as simple sciences; behavioral sciences such as psychology or sociology, meanwhile, are termed complex sciences.) Climate science may not fit neatly on such a spectrum. The factors affecting our climate are intricate almost beyond comprehension. Climate, climate change, and weather events are embedded within a system of unimaginable complexity.

What message do we receive about the certainty of climate conclusions from a substantial cadre of professional climatologists? Likewise, what message do we receive from the majority of our educators, a bevy of science journalists, and numerous politicians of every stripe? For starters, we quote a statement, one of hundreds of news releases flooding our culture at every turn: “In reality, the science of climate change is largely settled. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, considered the world’s leading scientific body on the issue, has confirmed in several reports that man-made climate change is occurring and poses a threat to the health of the planet.” The public has now been informed, we are told, and the final verdict is in. We need only to accept the simple message: The global warming issue is settled. Man is causing dangerous warming. And we must act now.

As an undergraduate student I took two related electives. The subject matter fascinated me, even though I had not yet committed to a career in science education. The courses were titled Meteorology and Climatology. At the time global warming was not on the radar screen of public awareness. Only in the past two decades has a substantial segment of the climate science community committed itself to pronouncements of harmful anthropogenic global warming. That community has jumped aboard the bandwagon recommending heroic solutions for global climate problems. Such problems have not yet manifested themselves except as part of their data-selected climate models. Climate scientists and their publicists resist admitting to legitimate scientific disagreements among scientists on these issues. But contrary to their incessant public message, the issue is NOT settled.

Kevin Birdwell is a meteorologist and climate researcher at the University of Tennessee. In a recent submission to a Reasons to Believe publication, he observes, “The climate variations throughout Earth’s history have been both significantly warmer and colder than the climate of the present. These temperature changes may be reliant on a well-balanced system of land masses, oceans, human life, and more. By observing each of these factors in the past, what can scientists predict about temperature changes in the future?”

Birdwell expresses an insightful vision of the Biblical worldview of our

wonderful planet Earth, a system created by God. The Christian worldview accounts for the Father’s care for planet Earth, including fossil fuels providently supplied for our modern society long ages ago in earth history. Our post does not absolve modern man of responsible care for our planet including the monitoring of potentially significant harmful effects of human habitation. High on our priority for understanding our planetary climate system is Birdwell’s quotation of Proverbs 8:

I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overlap his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. (Proverbs 8:27-31 NIV)

Diminished Climate Alarm

For the past several years we have experienced an interesting “global cooling.” In this sense “cooling” is diminished alarm over the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Explanations abound for the reduced level of alarm. There is a more realistic appraisal from all sides concerning the science supporting or not supporting anthropogenic global warming. Our population may be more cognizant of the difference between good science and bad science. The blanket claim that science supports a particular view has been subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Instead of accepting such a statement as self-proving, the claim is invalidated as it becomes apparent that the quality of some scientific claims is superior to other claims. In addition, public awareness is increasing that there are serious economic and political agendas to be fulfilled along with altruistic motivation. Often these motivations hide behind the claim that we must accept the science which supports a certain view.

Most citizens, when questioned concerning their opinion on global warming, offer quick responses of distaste for the worst case scenario. They claim concern for the dire warnings posed by modern disciples preaching human induced global heating. In our instant answer culture driven by opinion polling, many respondents are flattered to be questioned on such a pressing issue. As I composed this post, I encountered an article in The Huffington Post: “Climate Change Deaths Could Total 100 Million By 2030 If The World Fails To Act.” The author combines poor science, unsupported alarmism, and agenda-driven journalism. The report relied less on science and more on the credibility of an unnamed report “prepared for 20 governments.”

My conversation with a new acquaintance at a recent social gathering was punctuated by his expressions of alarm about the threats to humanity if sea levels rise, world temperature increases, and food resources dry up as predicted. Joining my three way conversation, another new friend offered an account of his recent conversation with an octogenarian who had personally lived through the horrendous heat and drought of multiple years in the 1930s in the US, especially the summers of 1934 and 1936 during which blowing soil particles from the mid west reached the east coast. I pointed out that the depression era severity of that event made the drought of 2012 look relatively mild. In the 1930s, the culture was not held captive by global warming alarm as has gripped our contemporary culture in the past two or three decades and In particular, in the first decade of our new millennium. This modern phenomenon is unprecedented.

Another explanation of diminishing fervor for heroic climate initiatives may be an increased awareness of natural climate variations. The long term effects of natural climate fluctuation are easily discernable in the record of earth history. Climate variations sometimes occur on a scale of decades superimposed over timeframes of centuries. This fact is often stated as an afterthought or footnote when it should be paramount as we examine the big climate picture.

In addition, there may be increased understanding that severe or unusual weather events are distinct from climate change. For example, the 2012 heat wave and drought and even the record breaking cold wave of last winter which killed 650 residents in Eastern Europe must be understood from this perspective. Weather history reveals hundreds, if not thousands of severe weather events going back hundreds and thousands of years. In this light, last summer’s heat wave and drought in the US mid-section may be recognized as isolated severe weather events rather than a sign of long term global warming claimed by some alarmists. Media outlets, however, commonly blame global warming for severe episodes of weather. There has even been a tendency to blame last winter’s European cold snap and the very unusual lack of tornadoes last spring and summer in the mid west on a supposed global warming effect.

The famous US drought and heat wave of 1988 triggered the first wave of serious global warming warnings. Before and since then there have been many droughts, floods, heat waves, cold waves, blizzards and other remarkable weather phenomena. An examination of the frequently touted warnings that hurricane frequency and intensity has increased due to global warming has not materialized. Beginning in 2004 increased publicity about the chaotic nature of our climate system began to appear, along with several major books, a movie, art work, and attention from several major corporations. By 2007, nightly broadcast news coverage of climate change on the three major networks reached a peak of interest with Al Gore’s 2006 release of An Inconvenient Truth, followed by his Nobel Prize shared with the United Nations supported IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) for their well publicized work with global warming warnings. Network news coverage of global warming has returned to pre-1997 levels in the last several years.

Our climate system was designed and authored by our provident Creator. Its natural variation has provided for a vibrant, productive planet--a place to thrive. Science has demonstrated the presence of hundreds of interrelated global factors, including climate factors on which successful life depends. Carbon is the building block for all life on earth. CO2 is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels which were divinely provided as a rich resource for the development of our modern culture. Atmospheric CO2 sustains plant life. The proposition that CO2 is a pollutant is beyond reason. The proposal that rising carbon dioxide levels contribute to a harmful rise in the greenhouse effect and thus to dangerous earth warming is not substantiated by the best science.

We join with scientists and theologians who see CO2, a miniscule fraction of our atmosphere but mighty in its importance, as the provision of a caring God. We welcome the diminished concern over carbon. We salute a return to a thankful understanding of manifold divine provisions for humanity.

Evangelical Declarations and Climate Initiatives

If matters of a secular nature such as service to our fellow man, scientific discoveries, or politics were not sufficiently important to command our attention at coffee table discussions, theology always adds an extra dimension. This may be especially true if we deal with controversial matters such as climate change and global warming. How could our responsibility to exercise Christian stewardship and prudent care for God’s creation enter the discussion? Could theological questions make the climate change discussion more relevant and interesting? Would the discussion assume more importance?

From a theological perspective, climate questions leave us with important and difficult challenges. If the discoveries of science are cited as important in our climate change and global warming decision making, we must be sure decisions are based on correct scriptural principles as well as good science. Does our worldview help us regard nature as a self contained and self sustaining entity? Do we believe that “nature knows best?” or that the earth and its atmosphere, untouched by human hands, is the ideal? Such extreme positions must be balanced by conscientious biblical stewardship. How may we use earth’s plentiful fossil fuel resources and sound economics according to God’s plan for human prospering? These questions are at the heart of the evolving modern climate change dialogue.

Of many Christian groups who have claimed a share of influence in the theological dimensions of climate and global warming, I have selected two divergent movements emerging from the past decade within the evangelical community. Both groups emphasize creation care and stewardship issues with respect to climate, human flourishing, and food resources. Both groups care deeply about the welfare of the human population, particularly for the poorest among us. Scripture teaches us to care about each of these dimensions.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative began in 2006 with 86 evangelical leaders. By 2011 the number had risen to 220 leaders who subscribed to the call to action. Their initial statement, reported in Christianity Today claimed “Human induced climate change is real.” It calls on the government to pass legislation establishing limits on carbon dioxide emissions—widely believed to be the primary cause of human induced global warming. Further, one spokesman declared “Global warming is going to affect millions in this century…We feel we have to do something about it.” The original statement’s signatories included Rick Warren, Christianity Today editor David Neff, executive editor Timothy George, and editorial director Andy Crouch, Wheaton College president Duane Litfin, former NAE president Leith Anderson, and a wide spectrum of other evangelical leaders.

On the opposite side of the evangelical climate continuum is the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. It descended from the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance in order to better reflect “its purpose and principles.” The Cornwall Alliance believes “Earth and its ecosystems…are robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting” and display God’s glory. The Alliance denies “that carbon dioxide—essential to plant growth—is a pollutant.” They believe that “Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures. Cornwall spokesmen declare that “Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.” Their concern is that “while passion may energize environmental activism, it is reason, including sound theology and sound science—that must guide the decision-making process.”

The Evangelical Climate Initiative signatories seem to be comprised of a wide range of members of the clergy and many Christian ministry leaders. The Cornwall Alliance endorsers are a diverse group of ministry leaders, theologians, philosophers, ethicists, pastors, scientists, economists, and Christian educators.

How is this scenario a challenge to thinkers in the evangelical community? One sector of this wide ranging group believes the scientific evidence on climate change leads to one set of conclusions and calls to action while the other sanctions conflicting evidence and advocates completely different responses. Resolving manifestly different interpretations of climate scientists is a monumentally significant task for the Christian. Beyond this, agreement on a unified action plan could be a recipe for disharmony.

The Christian response to climate issues involves a difficult entanglement of science, theology, economics, and politics. Our idealistic desire to “do something about it,” may lead us to impossible terrain if the science is wrong or if our theology is errant. In addition, political motivation or personal desire to benefit economically from agreed upon climate solutions, may consign the entire project to failure or catastrophe.

A focused study of these interwoven issues becomes essential for those in leadership in the evangelical community. We cannot afford to err scientifically, theologically, or economically. The science is definitely not settled on the maze of issues surrounding climate change, and in particular, anthropogenic global warming. Draconian solutions proposed to remedy temperature change caused by man instead of recognition of natural cycles of warming and cooling occurring throughout earth history seem not to be grounded in wisdom and reason. Economic measures costing trillions of dollars may compound our errors and be counterproductive in our desire to help the world’s poor.

For the last several years the evangelical movement toward an activist role on climate change solutions has been waning. The secular campaign is also retreating gradually. Never has there been a greater need for the application of the verse in the epistle of James: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” James 1:5 (NIV). Old Testament wisdom books are filled with appropriate instruction such as that of Proverbs 2:1-6. In Psalm 90:12 we are instructed, “Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Biblical exhortations on wisdom apply across a broad range of human experience.

Climate Controversy

Mark Twain’s old saw “Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it” is not an accurate description of today’s world. An army of climate scientists, government legislators, and journalists has, indeed, set out in recent years to do something about it. It is one of the most discussed issues of our day. Their science interpretations and motivations for remedial action are as diverse as the weather itself. Those interpretations clearly point in several different directions. Scientists are intensely confident in the certainty of their results. Non-scientists view this scenario with bewilderment when strident voices confidently proclaim science should not be challenged. Science and truth should prevail, we are cautioned. But whose science and whose truth should prevail?

A variety of factors has gradually propelled climate awareness into the realm of major life changing legislation. The most ardent advocates of government involvement acknowledge the cost of implementing such mandatory carbon-inhibiting regulations may ultimately cost our societies trillions of dollars. Stakeholders on both sides of this matter cite science as the primary driver. Beyond this, many advocates on both sides hold that the findings of climate science are indisputable. Our trust in the rectitude of climate remedies has been firmly grounded by trust in science. What we hold as true is subservient to what school of science we embrace. In view of the truth that science is a distinctly human endeavor, we are faced with a difficult, even dangerous dilemma. Whose science do we believe? Common sense and reason are sometimes held hostage to science.

Steven F. Hayward, Weyerhauser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a piece in The Weekly Standard in 2010. Hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had recently provoked a worldwide stir. Hayward claims the consensus on anthropogenic climate change is crumbling, to put it mildly. He states “The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work…The U. S. Climate Action Partnership…is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress.” Cap and trade was a major centerpiece of sweeping legislation for regulating future man-made carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The legislation passed the House, but not the Senate.

The movement toward legislative activism on climate change solutions, however, is far from dead. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee on June 19, 2012, addressed congress with a lengthy address entitled, “An Honest Assessment of Climate Change Challenge.” The spirited nature of the senator’s presentation dispelled any notion that the matter has faded into oblivion.

Sen. Kerry robustly defended the position that global warming is fully supported by science. Kerry said “when it comes to challenge of climate change, the falsehood of today’s naysayers is only matched by the complacency of our political system.” He denounces “the silence that empowers misinformation and mythology to grow where science and truth should prevail.” Kerry decries “the simple appeal to the lowest common denominator of disinformation.” He believes “climate change is one of two or three of the most serious threats our country now faces, if not the most serious…” The senator disdains “those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science…” Finally, Sen. Kerry argues “there’s not a single credible scientist that will argue climate change isn’t happening,” a statement conforming to fact.

Climate scientists understand climate change happening now is similar to the climate changes of the eight major climate oscillations of the past 4000 years. Each of the four cooling and four warming episodes was unrelated to human causation. Climate scientists would agree that climate change has occurred naturally throughout Earth’s long history.

In April 2012 web articles reported on a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. Seven former Apollo astronauts were included among a group of 49 NASA engineers and scientists who oppose global warming alarmism by federal agencies. The letter condemns the extreme position that carbon dioxide is the major cause of climate change. They state such statements are endangering “the reputation of science itself.” The group contends the claim “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change” is “not substantiated.”  

What is the truth on climate change? Which scientists speak the truth regarding climate change? God’s people in science or in any other profession must search out and apply truth concerning the natural world. The discovery of truth is an achievable goal of awesome responsibility. When scientists disagree on a matter of great import to humanity such as the multidimensional global warming issue, the stakeholders share responsibility and culpability for searching out what is true and what is false and acting accordingly.