A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Reticent Thoughts on Global Warming

Richard Hall at Connexions has had an informative exchange with a friend over the human impact on global warming. Both men have a scientific background, and I have found their discussion to be quite helpful as I work through my current views and questions on the issue.

I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV (I do, however, have an amateurish fascination with astronomy), and I have never posted on the subject of global warming. I am hardly in a position to speak authoritatively on the issue; but I have read a fair amount on the matter from scientists on both sides of the issue. As we all know, most scientists believe that human beings are contributing to global warming, but there is a small minority of reputable scientists who have raised doubts; and no, not all of them work of big oil companies. (I have never understood how some people believe that scientists working for BP have an agenda, while scientists working for Greenpeace do not. We all have agendas, but that is another post for another time.)

What am I inclined to believe about global warming and where do I have questions?

First, I believe that global warming is taking place. Even those who are skeptical of the human impact on the matter agree that the earth is warming.

Second, I am inclined to believe that global warming is in part the result of a cycle that the earth is currently experiencing. In other words, part of what is happening would be taking place whether human beings lived on the planet or not.

Third, I am also inclined to believe that human beings are making an impact as well. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise in the modern industrial world. People do leave "footprints." To suggest they have no impact on the environment defies explanation.

My big question on global warming concerns the degree of human impact and the results of that impact; and this is where I think many "global warming skeptics" get tripped up on the issue. In other words, the issue for me and for many is not so much skepticism as to whether human beings are contributing to the warming of the earth, but we are skeptical of the Al Gore doomsday scenario. It's not so much the reality of global warming that we question, but the extreme results that some are proposing.

Connected to this is what has seemed at times to be the "cherry picking" of the evidence. In 2005 when we experienced a severe hurricane season in the Atlantic and Caribbean, the global warming extremists "came out of the woodwork" citing it as proof. I remember reading many blogs on the subject and watching the interviews on television. Some meteorologists were excoriated for saying that the busy hurricane season was more the result of a cycle than it was global warming. Notice that they were not denying the reality of global warming; they were simply saying that the hurricane season was more the result of something else. But that did not matter; the extremist global warming fundamentalists wouldn't consider the possibility, since it didn't fit within their doomsday Weltanshung. The problem now is that the past two hurricane seasons have been quite quiet, and the current silence from those who raised such a ruckus a couple of years ago is noticeably loud.

Moreover, while the ice is melting at the North Pole, it is thickening at the South Pole. The latter does not necessarily undermine the truth of global warming, but because of the latter, the former does not necessarily prove it.

By the way, the global warming skeptics also "cherry pick" the evidence as well. This too is unacceptable.

I realize that the response to this is that one needs to take all the evidence in total and draw conclusions from the "big picture," and this is precisely what I am saying. It does not help the cause of those who want to convince others of the human impact of global warming to focus on one phenomenon, sound the alarm, and then become quiet when that same evidence at some point in the future undermines their view. Why is it so impossible to embrace the truth of the human impact on global warming and, at the same time, acknowledge that not all natural phenomena is the result of global warming?

To be fair, most scientists are not joining in on the "panic model," Hall quotes from a post on the New Scientist Blog:

There is still plenty of scientific debate about just how much the world will warm, an issue complicated by the many feedback factors. There’s also lots of debate on specific effects, such as how tropical cyclone activity will change.

This is a reasonable observation that I can whole-heartedly embrace; and I am grateful for the many intelligent people in the scientific world who will continue to debate the human impact and the results, so that all of us will benefit and be able to do what we can do to reduce our "carbon footprints." I would much rather be part of that discussion than having to endure digital representations of the state of Florida being submerged under the massive flooding of the world's oceans.

As a Christian there are two theological issues that come into play for me, and something that I think all Christians need to wrestle with as we work through global warming and other important issues of our time. I am quite aware that theological questions are different from scientific questions (though not always), but as one who believes in the lordship of Jesus Christ, I cannot put my theology on the shelf. My Weltanshung simply will not permit it; after all, "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it."

The first theological matter concerns stewardship. Christians have always believed that God has called us to be good stewards of this world. We are to take care of it, which means that, since this is God's world, we cannot do with it as we please. So to those Christians who are skeptical of global warming I simply ask, "Global warming or not, isn't it a good idea to do what we can to reduce greenhouse gases?" "If tomorrow, some definitive scientific evidence came to light proving that global warming was not happening, would you use this evidence as an excuse to live how you want without regard to the environment?" "Are you skeptical of the human impact on global warming because you would rather live comfortably than responsibly?" "Do you not take seriously the divine command to take care of this world?" "Is your account of atonement so highly individualistic that you believe salvation is only about saving immaterial souls (whatever that means), and not about the renewal of creation?"

It seems to me that as those who have been charged with being the world's caretakers, we need to work toward alternative and more efficient sources of energy, and we need to be willing to sacrifice some lifestyle in order to be the kind of caretakers that please God. Christians should be leading the way on environmental matters. We have a charge from the One who created all things; and as St. Paul reminds us, in Christ God is renewing all of creation. We must not hinder that renewal.

The second theological matter concerns providence. Christians have always believed that God and not the nations, nor the scientists, rule the world. To those Christians who have embraced the Al Gore doomsday scenario, I ask: "Do you seriously think that God would allow us to destroy the world?" "Yes, of course, we can do much damage, but do you have so little confidence in God's sovereignty that you think he would allow us to do ourselves in?" "Why would God allow us to destroy the very world his Son died to save?" "Like the Christian global warming skeptics, is your account of atonement so highly individualistic that you believe salvation is only about saving immaterial souls (whatever that means), and not about the renewal of creation?" "Has your ecology become so unbiblical that you lack a sound eschatology?" "St. Paul speaks of the entire creation groaning for its renewal. Do you think creation is groaning in vain?"

Jesus was raised from the dead bodily precisely because this physical world matters to God; and it matters so much that he insists we take care of it. Even if we don't, he will not allow us to extinguish it; God has too much of a stake in his creation to allow that to happen. But that does not mean we can "live it up" it at the world's expense. God will indeed hold us accountable for our stewardship of this world, or the lack thereof.

This post is entirely too long, but I submit these thoughts, with hesitation, for further discussion.

6 comments:

Olive Morgan said...

Thank you, John, for voicing many of my own thoughts as I try to wrestle with the question of the causes of global warming and attempt to reduce my carbon "footprints" at the same time.

Ted M. Gossard said...

Allan, Good thoughts and framework here. I think I'm with you on this.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Olive and Ted:

Thanks for your comments.

Beth Quick said...

Nice post Allan - I think you touch on some theological thoughts here that I haven't seen too often elsewhere. Maybe you should give yourself best of the methoblogosphere this week ;)

Allan R. Bevere said...

Beth:

Thankd for your kind comments.

Oloryn said...

I have never understood how some people believe that scientists working for BP have an agenda, while scientists working for Greenpeace do not.

It's called Bulverism, and since C. S. Lewis coined the term in the 1940's, its use seems to have become even more pervasive. A form of ad hominem, it involves abandoning the attempt to prove your opponent wrong, opting instead to assume they're wrong, and putting your effort into explaining (or, more truthfully, speculating on) what influences made them think that way. It allows you to get away from the difficult and challenging task of logically proving your opponent wrong, and to instead indulge yourself in speculating on your opponent's evil and ignorant motives (in contrast, of course, to your own righteous and knowledgable motives). It is, as Lewis points out, all too common, and is not at all confined to any one part of the political spectrum - the left succumbs to it, the right succombs to it, and just about everyone in between.

Personally, I think the pervasiveness and acceptance of Bulveristic argument is one of the things contributing to the viciousness of modern politics. Bulverism turns you away from examining facts to "examining" motives (I put that in quotes because in my experience, the vast majority of people are actually pretty lousy in discerning other people's motives. Bulverism is thus not just intellectually lazy and another case of putting the cart before the horse, it depends on an ability which most people exercise poorly). Once Bulveristic argument becomes pervasive and accepted (which I believe it has, in spades), debate ends up proceeding not on proof of facts, but on "proofs" of the opposition's bad motives. We end up arguing not about who's right, but about who's righteous.

Lewis commented "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs". I'm at times afraid we're busy proving that.