What can churches do about climate change?

By Alexander Carpenter

Often Adventists have been intellectually torn over how much faith to put in the scientific method. After all, we are the progenitors of George McCready Price and the Loma Linda University School of Medicine. Unlike the Scientologists and Christian Scientists, historically Adventists have attempted to apply the findings of science about health care while eschewing the same method's findings on geochronology or the origins of life.  While historically significant, the work of Price has pretty much been discredited and while fifty years ago few Adventists would admit to multi-million-year-old geological column, now even some staunch defenders of a literal six-day creation admit that the rocks have been around long before.

But we certainly won't solve this on a blog. Perhaps here's a emerging third way to mix our science and faith.

These days a new science is in the controversial air: climate science. Why is it controversial? Because it is about American power with apocalyptic overtones--which should be right down our eschatalogical  alley.  Faced with the most comprehensive report on global warming--thousands of scientists, hundreds of countries--how will we respond? Should we care about our earth? Should we do it because science suggests that if we don't the eco-system will collapse? Does the bible and our lifestyle support creation care? Some friends of mine at Interfaith Power and Light published the following op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. As you read, consider the implications: might this be an issue where pastors and the local congregations can work together to save the world?

Science and religion unite on climate

In the wake of the most significant scientific report to date on the potentially dire consequences of global warming, a ray of hope has emerged. Ironically, it emanates from the convergence of forces that have often been at odds. One force, the world of science, has long been on the forefront of the issue of climate change. Another equally powerful force, religion, has often remained on the sidelines  --  until recently.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of more than 2,000 of the world's top scientists from more than 100 nations, stated in a Feb. 2 report that global warming is "unequivocal," that it is rapidly changing the nature of our planet and its ecosystems, and that it is "very likely" being caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

In the course of the last decade, a significant movement within the faith community has been mobilizing around the call to care for God's creation, the web of life that sustains us all. This calling is the essence of religious life, and people of faith are beginning to hear it, even as scientists sound the alarm that we may be nearing a climactic tipping point.

We view science and religion as powerful potential partners. The hope is that the clarity of the science will inspire a concerted effort by the leaders in both communities and thus avoid the most catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis.

Scientists have also provided us with insights that raise serious ethical challenges, particularly the issue of the choice between stewardship and fatalism  --  the moral dilemma of our time. We can accept the challenge with hope or sit on our hands and do nothing. For people of faith, the moment of truth has come, and we must open our eyes to the knowledge that modern science is showing us. The choice offered us is to move beyond denial and doubt that global warming is caused by human activities to play an active part in a global effort to save this fragile creation or suffer the consequences.

The active involvement of religion is necessary for wide-scale social change. Social movements from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement have been led by the religious community. Some  64 percent of Americans belong to a church or synagogue, and nearly  50 percent attend a service every week, according to a 2005 Gallup poll. (By comparison, only 14 percent are active participants in environmental organizations.) 

Evidence that religious people are making the choice in favor of environmental stewardship is coming in every day. This fall, more than 400,000 people in congregations across the country viewed Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," in packed houses. Almost every major denomination has adopted statements of concern on global warming. Evangelicals, often skeptical of science, are breaking with the president to join the call for action on reductions in greenhouse gases.

Science and religion have proved to be capable of independently inspiring social change and reshaping global consciousness. Just imagine what these forces could do together, in a united effort to reverse the damage we have done to our planet.

In 2007, we stand at a crossroads and there is a choice we must all make. Thanks to science, we have the knowledge of the damage we have caused to our planet, and how to stop it. Greenhouse gases need to be stopped. 

Now, with religious institutions becoming engaged, will we, as a society, have the collective wisdom to break with our destructive behavior and choose another way? We have seen the religious community putting aside differences to solve a moral problem in the past with issues such as slavery and the civil-rights movement. We might also see differences put aside and rejoice in the marriage of religion and science. It is a pivotal moment, and the consequences of our choice will be felt for generations to come.

Stephen H. Schneider is a professor of biological science at Stanford University. He has been studying, writing and speaking about the issue of climate change for 30 years.

The Rev. Sally Bingham is a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of California and a member of the board of Environmental Defense. She is the leader of a national campaign, Interfaith Power and Light, which is mobilizing the religious community in 22 states to become leaders in the fight against global warming. See www.InterfaithPowerandLight.org

 

Comments

[Jared Wright]

A few responses to this timely post:

1. I'm happy to see Christians finally owning up to the environmental problems at hand. It's about time.

2. I think that as silly as it might sound, a major reason that more Christians do not take these issues seriously is that there are not specific proof texts in support of environmental action -AND- given the fact that up until now, the strongest voices in support of environmental action have come from left-leaning groups whom most conservative Christians oppose, it is easy to write environmentalism off as part of a "liberal" agenda.

3. Adventists can and should be a lot more proactive in these discussions.

Here's a new venue for just such discussions to take shape: adventist-environmental-advocacy.blogspot.com

[Elaine]

Anyone unconvinced of the drastic changes accompanying climate change should see "An Inconvenient Truth." This is a powerful movie, and Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Prize for this work.

Aren't we all supposed to be stewards of this earth, our only home? Yet we are continuing to foul our own nest.

[Alexander]

Hey Jared,

I checked out your Adventist Environmental Advocacy site-- great conversation. Keep up the good work--maybe we just might restore more than our souls.

[Darius (statrei)]

We cannot restore our climate until we fully accept that we are responsible for destroying it. This is not as simple as it sounds. This is our habitat and it is contrary to reason that we would deliberately destroy our habitat. Other animals in the animal kingdom do not engage in similarly destructive behavior. Yet, we have. We need to honestly try to figure out why we have. Part of doing that is to admit that we have aborted our own development. This is the only reason why we would have deliberately harmed our habitat. But this was not deliberate on our part. This happened because we have been shooting blind from the very beginning. We have been trying to discover who we are with no blueprint from anyone as to who we are. In most cases our observations enabled us to determine where our conclusions were wrong. But it seems that there was one area in which we went wrong and have not been able to detect it. As a result we have been living our lives as if we are a collection of individual beings instead of an organic unit. Only an honest historical review will enable us to determine what and when this happened.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

I knew George McCready Price. He was no Samuel Wilberforce! This issue is: are Creationist better stewards of the environment or are evolutionists? Certainly, the George W. Bush variety of the Religious Right are far behind evolutionists. I believe the SDA hyumnal includes the Gospel Song "This is My Father's World". I also believe that God gave Adam dominion. So I believe that we are stewards not only our bodies, our talents, our time, and our increase, we are stewards of planet. At least when we leave it is from dust to dust! In the mean time "brighten the corner where you are!" Signed Tom

[Bob Rigsby]

The sermon where I worship this past Sabbath was part of a series on the 10 commandments. And this week was on the third. Our pastor suggested that one might think of that commandment every time we thought to apply God’s blessing and name to an agenda of our own… And I thought: What could better describe the idea that a “Christian” must believe the current popular “global warming” myths…
Maybe time for a bit of dissent?

It seems to me that worry about “climate change” is a uniquely “first world” luxury; indulged in by those with lives of relative ease (due in large measure to the economic success born of an industrial economy fed by -- what else -- fossil fuels!) who have the need to feel guilty about having what others don’t. Do we imagine most of the world shares “our” fears of this impending catastrophe? I doubt it. No, the vast majority dream of being able to participate in “our” success! They dream of a higher “standard of living” which really does seem to correlate well with the use of -- what else -- fossil fuels! Is it, therefore, “Christian” to earnestly expect THESE -- hoping for a better life -- to go along with the paranoia and hysteria represented by today’s first world elites doomsday scenarios?? For me it isn’t.

I have an idea: we need to do some serious research to find out how the Christians in the centuries around 1000 AD handled THEIR “climate change crisis”. Farming in Greenland? Wow -- whatever those Christians did back then sure did “work”. What was it they “did”? We need to find out. In fact, they “did” it so well that by the 1970’s, they had to STOP doing “it” -- because of fears of a looming ICE AGE that science warned of then!!

Modernism, it seems, has long taken to chastising the religious for following too blindly and mindlessly the pronouncements of its shamans and priests and holy men. Yet they do not consider for even a moment that they are prone to follow JUST as slavishly and uncritically the dogma and mantras of ITS priests: the “scientists”… So confident are they that they alone are capable of discerning “inconvenient truths”, they angrily -- with arrogance and cruelty (eg. see Ellen Goodman’s recent column) -- condemn those who point to truths which do not “conform” to their “religion”.

Does the fact that I take seriously some “inconvenient truths” that Al Gore ignores entirely mean I am somehow NOT a Christian? I can live with that…. The stiffling of dissent is one huge tip off that honest discussion is not what is desired.

It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that “scientists agree” -- when in fact they do not. If one FIRST eliminates those scientists who DISAGREE, then sure -- it’s true. It's easy to achieve "consensus" if you only consult people who agree with you.But that’s not science folks. What we are watching is politics -- pure and simple. Please! Lets not confuse that with Christianity...
=============
I realize this is not at all how “you” think, but it occurs to me that there is a terrible disconnect within those who believe in “global warming” (the “old” term is more honest than “climate change” I find…) and “evolution”…

For the true believer in evolution, Alex perhaps being our most unabashed example, global warming should be no problem at all! Yet it is, for him, a profound problem… That puzzles me. The obvious answer is that we are merely the product OF evolution -- and the “fact” that we seek to obliterate ourselves by “warming” our own house (planet) into extinction must mean that we have not yet evolved enough; we are but a transitional form (one of many many which have come before us; all having died nobly -- God bless “them” -- serving only to improve the lot of the “next” on the evolutionary scale…) who will -- down the line -- give way to an “evolved” species who will KNOW better. C’est la vie….

An evolutionist should understand that the earth is one long, protracted history and bubbling cauldron of sudden appearances and sudden DIS appearances of various forms of life. IF we, by our OWN HAND (as global warming theory insists) disappear, it is but the hand of God at work: through evolution. We didn’t make the grade ( don’t feel bad -- none of our forefathers did either…) so “good luck” to the next version of “human”…

[Dick Larsen]

It is ironic that humans who by evelutionary thought have come along to the point of contemplation. And in that process of looking at the moment, looking back and then looking toward the future and manipulating it to avoid the past, the evolved species destroys all it hoped for.
I myself am not able to weigh all that is said about the soon demise of Earth as we no it let alone with confidence pronounce it as our (humans) fault. Neither can I blame it on cows. One thing I do know is that the conservative part of me is very bothered at the vast quantities of disposalbleness that surrounds me and I enage in daily.

[Alexander]

Before anyone suggests that there exists a debate among scientists on global warming read the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change here.

http://www.ipcc.ch

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

In fact, the ExxonMobil funded American Enterprise Institute just got caught offering scientists $10,000 to write articles against the recent IPCC report.

Hence the sense of debate. . .

Also, while it's a nice idea that it's not an issue in the 2/3rds world, but in fact having spent two years in Bangladesh and India I can report that they get it more than most Americans. In fact, American's are exploiting the world for our benefit and they just want a piece of the pie. It's not our luxury; it's our moral obligation to fight our greed and overconsumption.

I hear a lot of pastors sermonize rightly on the affluenza today--but rarely do they have the guts to actually suggest that CAFE standards or a gas tax might make a difference.

"The average American currently uses more than 10 times more resources than the average Chinese person."

I agree that one should always check the evidence. Above I've posted real sources, the fact remains that there's really no remaining debate, only apathy toward peer-reviewed, painstakingly approved, globally-vetted science--when folks who find this inconvenient can match the rigor, then that's debate.

And finally, the very respected UK Stern Review recently pointed out that the economic consequences of non-action are worse than the changes required to cut carbon emissions.

Hey I used to wonder and then I just sat down and read the evidence critically. If anyone still has questions--the Real Climate blog by real climate scientists--is a good place to start.

Eh, one for the road. Here's a great essay on five books by Bill McKibben in the NYReview that anyone who has an opinion on this topic should read before spinning off post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies about climate science and evolution. There's a significant difference between multicollinearity in logic and the multivalence of meaning.

Dissent is actually not that difficult--the rub's in the research.

[Ross]

Despite what Alexander says, others say there still is a debate. The Boston Globe, for example, even this week can't help but write on the "debate" issue (see their recent article, dated February 15, 2007, entitled "Debate Over Global Warming Is Shifting" (see http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/15/debate_over_global_warming_is_shifting/).

I would hate any scientific debate concluded or declared "over" because scientists believe that humans are "90%" responsible for global warming. Ten percent is a very large number, and it should give room for plenty of discussion.

[Autospaniel]

Consensus is not science. So posting even more "expert" opinions from even more arcane and self-important world bodies will convince me otherwise.
Here are two readings for those who are unwilling to farm out their thinking to "smart people":

"Aliens Cause Global Warming" by Michael Crichton--
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

And the book:
"Unstoppable Global Warming: : Every 1,500 Years" by Dennis T. Avery
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

I am not convinced that global warming is anthropogenic and I think that even if it is partly so, we have no evidence of the effect this will have on the planet.

Global Warming is a religion. 100 years is a blip in our Earth's thousand-year (trillion?) history, and is no basis for any "trend"-making.

[Jared Wright]

Sorry to re-enter this conversation so late in the game...

So some of the facts and figures are presumably open for debate. At the very least, there isn't consensus among readers of this blog as to the actual extent that global warming is - or isn't - an issue.

I have to be honest and admit that I don't know all of the issues at stake. I'm not as well read on global warming as I wish I were. Time doesn't allow it. However, it seems pretty certain that there are undeniably negative effects that result from the chemicals, exhaust, toxins, and carcinogens that humans pump into the atmosphere on a very regular basis. If you doubt that, try jogging on a warm day in Loma Linda. Or Bangkok. Or Daka, Mexico City, Rio De Janeiro, or Manila. Heck, try jogging in any populated area, and it won't take long to come to the conclusion that human activities have real, tangible, and detrimental effects on the environment.

Look out at the San Bernardino Mountains in mid-July from Redlands, California. You won't see the mountains at all because they are covered in a thick brown haze.

Whether or not this junk we spew into the atmosphere has an immediate or long-term effect on global temperatures is really beside the point. The fact is that this stuff doesn't belong there, and it's there because of us.

Does that mean that every one from L.A. to the Inland Empire in Southern California should stop driving cars and start walking or riding bikes? Realistically, it ain't gonna happen. The problem is that people easily dismiss the issues because of the fact that they won't easily go away. Oh well, we say. That's life.

My dad teaches Anatomy at LLU and works with cadavers--people who never smoked a day in their lives but lived in smoggy cities. In their lungs, my dad reports finding the same black carbon splotches present in smoker's lungs.

I walk to work every day. I suck in foul fumes that will probably shave years off my life. I am not a contributor to Bangkok's deplorable air quality, but I am certainly a beneficiary.

It's time to take off the blinders and start taking pollution seriosly, and time to start taking personal action. People united in personal commitment to positive change will do as much or more good than any government policy!

[Alexander]

Here's another excellent article on the history of the science of global warming.

Global warning by Bill McKibben

It's significant that a critique above employs four-year-old "evidence" from Crichton, who is not peer reviewed. Here's a critique of Crichton by the non-partisan Brookings Institution.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

My question has always been if global warming were not an issue (I do believe it is) would Christians have any less reason to advocate for moderating our consumption of natural resources?

What truly astounds me is that there are Christians who would say that since global warming isn't proven we have no reason to moderate our consumption. Indeed some go on to argue that we have a divine mandate to exploit the earth and destroy the planet. After all Jesus is coming soon.

Truly shocking!

[Bob Rigsby]

Oh my.

Alexander worries that a NOVEL writer is not "peer reviewed"? (and when did Alexander become "nonpartisan???) And Johhny is "astounded" and "shocked" that Christians would not see this as he does.
Well...
I do agree with young Jared: trust me Jared -- when I went to LLU SM '79-83 the pollution was worse then than it is now. (So I'm told by those who live there) Still nasty though. I tried to run on the track at the gym: no go. Chest pain and tightness (yellow tinge against the mountains) cut my runs short.

Johhny: do you not let people -- in their "liberty" choose for themselves how much they can consume? (or would you rather decide for them? After all, we let "them" decide if they want to kill their preborn -- if they feel it's best?) Hey: how about a little FREEDOM on this issue of “global warming”??
I'd bet they also are rather astounded and shocked at some of YOUR positions also.... Welcome to the family brother…

Oh yes, a pertinent quote here…
"Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism."
(Commenting on the misuse of science to support political agendas, Harvard's Dr. Malcolm Ross concludes of such folly.)

All I ask is that, when the next cooling cycle comes around (as it has for these thousands -- millions? -- of years) will our Christian "climate change" activists apologize for their hype and fear mongering??

(And may I politely ask: is this your politics speaking -- or your Christianity?)

[Alexander]

Hey Bob,

Happy Sabbath!

So. . .your source is Dr. Malcolm Ross. You might want to check your research since he has a long history of sitting on tobacco industry panels and attacking the Environmental Protection Agency's science on the dangers of nicotine. See evidence here.

He's also tied to the CEI crowd which gets lots of its funding from the oil industry. Are you seriously basing your reasoning on him?

Frankly I don't trust his false equivalence between caring for creation and being a socialist since that's in the context of defending for-profit corporations against public health science. Do you also agree with Ross that tobacco-smoking doesn't hurt health in significant ways?

The debate here is not whether science gets things wrong. Of course it does. But it has built-in mechanisms for checking itself and those have been working on climate change. Look at the last two decades of IPCC reports. There are at least parameters for understanding if something is true or false. How do you check Crichton or Ross, what parameters do you use to make sure that any information works?

Next point:

Just because science and Christianity mixes with public policy doesn't mean that any is suspect. Certainly politics is messy business and I'd love to see the American version cleaner, but it's what we've got these days. . .

Since you asked me personally, yes, I read, listen, and pray to make my political views an outgrowth of my personal faith. It seems to me that folks like MLKJ, William Wilberforce, Abraham Heschel, Jesus Christ and many others found in faith a call to serve the public good.

Politics is merely the working out of our public will -- and the last time I read Matt 5, Jesus says blessed are the meek, peaceful, those persecuted for justice sake for that's the kingdom of God.

There is no such thing as a neutral Christianity. Those who stand for the status quo often hurl the epithet "too political" at those who worked for abolition, civil rights, equal rights, and yes, back in the Early Modern era those who dared to think that individuals, not the church or state, could decide what to believe.

My goal is to never be partisan, but to be informed enough so that when it matters I'm not neutral either. See Nazi Germany and the Confessing Church. In fact, read the gospels carefully -- what got Jesus killed was that he seemed to threaten the power structures of the day. Listen to the accusations against him -- King of the Jews, cleanses the temple, mixes charity work with the God's day. Frankly I just want to take the oft-repeated trope seriously and try to treat others as Jesus would. If that's too political or too Christian for some, so be it.

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Way to represent Alex.

And Bob, great use of quotation marks. I laughed.

As to the question of motivation- maybe it has something to do with the fact that my parents had us go on Auburn Society events on Sunday after church on Sabbath while growing up in Massachusetts (well done parents!). Or maybe it is because God commanded it. I see my concern for creation as being inspired by a deep belief in the creator God, the Christ who calls me to love and the church I was raised in.
Thanks!

[Elaine]

Not to worry. The world's oil supply has already peaked and is on the decline. Yes, there's shale oil and deep Gulf oil but when the production cost becomes much more than it's worth, then what?

At the same time the oil is declining, the world is rapidly demanding more. Supply and demand? When it hits $300/bbl, will there be the same amount of pollution?

[Rodney Willard]

The San Bernardino Mountains disappeared every summer long before the LA smog arrived. The mechanism is the same as that in the Great Smokies - a natural consequence of the release of terpens and other plant substances into the atmosphere. The difference now is the color as our auto exhaust fumes stain the natural smog.

[Bob Rigsby]

Hi again Alex -- and thank you for the Sabbath well wishes; it WAS a very blessed Sabbath indeed! For Alden Thompson has been here with us this weekend speaking with our fledgling Forum chapter. What a man -- what a blessing. We talked on last night for 2 hours after the official presentation! and again a few more this afternoon. And it kills me that hardly any of my “conservative” friends wanted to attend… I continue to be amazed that this pure treasure of Adventism is so poorly heard and so marginalized. He is astonishingly gracious…

But I didn’t get to ask him what his position is on “global warming”!!

So I’m busted huh?? At first I had no clue what you were talking about when you brought up Ross; I’d never heard the guys name before nor read anything of his but this quote. So it seems you do not trust this man’s research; perhaps you are right. But it never ceases to amaze me how each of us are so able to detect the impure motives of the other guys expert -- yet so utterly unable to see the tainted motivation of the ones WE believe! But just a reminder: isn’t there (this is from old memory…) a fallacy called the genetic fallacy whereby you reject something (a truth) because you’ve rejected it’s source? I think you’re committing that fallacy. If a thing is true, it’s true even IF the speaker is a paid pro tobacco apologist.

So, let me commit that very same fallacy. Seems your faith in the IPCC knows no bounds; except this is a United Nations organization. And that is the most corrupt, political, socialist organization I can think of! And you imagine they are trustworthy! With no agenda of their own! Trust the organization that, 5 years after 9-11, still is unable to come up with a meaningful definition of TERRORISM!! I must confess that when you assert that there IS no debate on this issue, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to pity you. You ACTUALLY don’t think there IS a question! (At first, I thought you were kidding. Really.) But then I recall that you don’t think there is any “debate” about evolution either!
(Stay with me Alex -- there’s a question I’m trying to build…)

Let’s just step back a few years in our minds eye: there is young Alex all perplexed and concerned about global COOLING. The coming ICE age. Mobilize! Save the planet! And maybe even calling the “church” to action! Jump forward a few years, and now Alex is worried about the “growing Ozone hole”. Skin cancers will explode; Radiation will ruin us! Save the planet! (You’ve yet to help me comprehend how your evolutionistic leanings inform your social activism… Isn’t it obvious? Nature is purifying us here… ) Except that now the ozone hole is shrinking! Well now it seems our young Alex (lest that sound too condescending, I just turned 50 so am feeling, well, “older”…) has just discovered the perils of global warming! And just in time; for maybe no one will notice that he has failed to apologize for the panic he helped incite on the ozone hole.

I guess I’m kinda surprised -- well “shocked” (to borrow Johnny’s word) -- that you have checked your skepticism at the door on this one. I thought progressives were supposed to be skeptical. In the good way!

Here are just a few hints (for me) that global warming activists are not serious:

Is Al Gore REALLY interested in truth -- and believes what he says he wants ME to believe? Then why is he tooling around the country (and world) in his Gulfstream III pumping 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per hour! Can anyone say INCONVENIENT TRUTH… Why does his panic stricken movie (did someone say conservatives were fear mongers??) travel to that 2% of Antarctica that IS melting, yet falsely imply that the whole continent is? Seems the other 98% is GROWING. Hmmm
All together now: INCONVENIENT TRUTH…
Why does the pure and beloved UN committee ignore the very INCONVENIENT TRUTH of the massive global warming period a millenium ago that ended about 1300?

If green is the way to go to save the planet, why not the obvious solution of nuclear power?

Alexander: if you expect me to believe you that you have honestly and with integrity processed the information, and come to believe what you have, why do you not extend that same trust to me? I just wish, for a few days anyway, you could uninstall that “conservative filter” you have on your computer and grow at least a teeny bit of suspicion for the possibility that the UN seeks to save the world through their special brand of Marxist socialism…

So now, my question. Lets just say that you ARE able to give me the benefit of the doubt (though still, you disagree with me). And you can accept that I have come to my conclusions with integrity and fairness. Yet we still disagree. Can you understand my dilemma when I hear you ask what the Church can do against global warming? I sorta kinda have come to believe that I AM part of the church (big “C”) -- yet I think global warming is hysteria under the guise of science. Here’s what it feels like to me Alex; it feels like hearing Cliff Goldstein tell me that if I don’t get on board with the 27 fundamentals (which many many of us have real trouble with) I’d be more honest if I just left Adventism. (Can you hear Cliff Goldstein saying, of the investigative judgement, “there IS no debate. the issue has been resloved!”) So it sorta has the implications (you are far too gracious and gentlemanly to actually SAY this) that maybe I’m not CHRISTIAN unless I “go along” on this global warming deal. Gulp. REALLY?

What I want to know Alex, is HOW can I bless you, on this quest of yours to go out and slay this windmill, even though I think you are mistaken?
Second, I get the sinking feeling that when you condemn the “religious right” you do not cut them the same slack you cut for yourself when it comes to THEIR religion informing THEIR politics (attempts to sway public opinion on issues of public policy). When it comes to THEM -- suddenly the cry rises up CHURCH AND STATE VIOLATION! I’m just sensing a kind of double standard here.

Lastly, you are VERY correct in that Jesus was killed for his implicit threats against the institutions of His day. (that is, the implications of His teachings threatened terribly the “powers” of that day…) Recent stuff I’ve read iluminates that idea greatly. Walter Winks stuff. And The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. This is a book which I have INSISTED that my two older kids read. I wish every Adventist would read it. (And of course folks like Marcus Borg have been saying this for some time now…)
So Alex: I’m a Christian, who sees things differently. I want to support you, but I fear (well, it feels like) support must mean agreement… What do I do? If YOU “took over” the church, would I be faced with treatment like we “Adventists” treated, say, Des Ford? or currently vastly underappreciate someone like Alden Thompson??

[Elaine]

Bob, of course Adventists will disagree; nothing new about that, is there?

But, can't we consider that global warming just may be in the future? This shouldn't be so difficult when Adventists have been crying "The sky is falling" and soon Roman and Protestantism will stretch hand and unite, etc., and the dreaded Sunday laws and Mark of the Beast is soon upon us.

Didn't Adventism begin with a "Great Disappointment" of failed prophecy? And that was only the end of the world, while global warming is slightly less apocalyptic.

When the large majority of international scientists, many Nobel Prize winners, affirm the possibility, what benefit will accrue to them for speaking out on climate change? If they are wrong, will we have been harmed? How? Certainly not as much as the recent unnecessary wars this country has been involved with.

No, scientists are not endowed with infallibility, no more so than medical scientists. Do you greet the latter research and results with such disdain? What is the difference? Are you able to test their findings? On what basis can you reject them?

I'm a registered Skeptic, but when there seems to be overwhelming agreement by those to whose judgment I defer, knowing very little about their predictions, what gives me, or you, the prescience to say it's all hot air (pun intended)?

Surely, you know that the huge oil companies, with their exorbitatnt profits have contributed to refuting global warming; and that the two oil executives in the White House currently, have had very little, until this late day, to weigh in on the subject at all.

Will you wait until Chevron or Exxon speaks as if they are concerned about global warming?

Or, is it all political in your estimation?

BTW, I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" have you? And did you find it all a political statement?

[Elaine]

Malthus predicted the problem a few centuries ago.

What was the population of this earth 1,000 years ago and what is it today and what is it expect to be in two decades?

That makes all the difference. Never before has this earth had so many inhabitants and fast growing. Now solve that little problem, and voila! spoof, no added global warming.

[Alexander]

Yes, Alden is great.

My point in pointing out the background of your one science source was because as proved true you didn't even check your source before using him to bolster your argument. I don't question your motives, I question your methodology. What are your sources on Antarctica?

Since you brought up evolution, I'll let you know that it doesn't really color my hypothesis about climate change. Did you know that while almost all biologists accept it, almost 2/3rds of the American people don't? There's a strong anti-intellectual strain in America that dismisses "experts" and "pointy-headed" scientists. Do you count yourself in that majority?

But let's move on. Have you read the links that I shared?

I've read uber-skeptic Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions and as I stated in the previous post I pay attention to broad scientific consensus preciously because it is falsifiable? If you choose to post on this topic again, I ask you to tell me what evidence would change your mind?

I don't know how much you've researched the brief 70s hype over cooling, but you seem to be referencing the classic Critchon/message board trope about the Newsweek article. Did you know that Newsweek actually apologized for being "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future"?

Here's the straight dope on it from serious scientists dismissing the global cooling vs. global warming myth.

All that stuff about the UN being a socialist organization needs some evidence because I'm familiar with the old 50s anti-pinko John Birch conspiracy theories, the 70s Nixon is a tool of internationalists, and the militia movements' worries about the NWO and I'd hate to think that you really believe that the 145 governments including the Bush administration that take global warming increasingly seriously are all part of an international Marxist cabal. Is everyone at the UN who doesn't believe like you a socialist? If not, then where does the pinko scare stop?

In addition to the prolixity, Do you have a theory for determining how a Christian should understand the scientific community?

[Bob Rigsby]

Alex:
In case you didn’t get it, let me say it slightly differently; this thread IS on global warming, but, what I want to know, is something else. You clearly don’t believe that I have read “enough” to come to anything like an informed position on the subject. (When I HAVE read “enough” I would obviously have come to the same conclusions as YOU?) Yet I believe I have. So here we are in “church” together. And I think you are wrong wrong wrong. You think you are right right right. All I’m asking is -- What Now?? (You did not answer my question, how can I BLESS you when I disagree with you? Your implied answer seems to be -- read everything I have, and think like me, agree with me, THEN you can bless me….???)

When I read, I don’t read to “research” and make lists of articles that I can “throw at” people. I assume you are broadly read; you don’t assume I am because I don’t sling references around like you. Yet if you are broadly read, and you need to ask ME for a reference on the enlarging ice mass in most of Antarctica, maybe you are NOT so broadly read. Is that possible? Please don’t tell me this is the first time you’ve heard this -- is it? (Besides; were I to find that article, you would do “research” on the one who wrote it, find a character flaw in them, a reason for suspected bias, and discard it out of hand.)

And it really doesn’t bother me (any more) to be referred to as “anti-intellectual” -- but really is harder (hope you can see why…) to worship besides someone who sees me this way.

Here’s what I’m beginning to see; seems for the conservatives (bad word, but best I have for now…) their flaw (according, maybe, to the “other” side) is that they base their theology on “Theologians agree…” and thereby suffer from belief via authority. And then I turn around and listen to progressives on things like global warming and they do the exact same thing -- only with the scientists! They suffer the very same sort of vulnerability to authority (Scientists Agree!) that they demean the religious right for succumbing to! That fascinates me.

What confuses me about you, Alex, if I may be so bold, is that your postmodernist tendencies DO serve you well in your theology. You DO see that the truth claims of religious people can and have been used to control and manipulate society and peoples in quests for power and domination. Yet when it comes to claims of “scientists agree” you become a strict modernist! Your postmodern leanings have disappeared! So, while your postmodernism has provided a great corrective to theology done by moderns (God said it, I believe it, that’s all there is TO it…) it has done no such thing for your “science”. YOU see science as pure, untainted, unbiased, “just the facts” -- a safe haven where manipulation and political leanings do not exist. Well, that’s just exactly how many believers see the BIBLE! But wow -- do THEY come up with some strange “readings”.

Now it seems that through history, the ones who have lead to breakthroughs -- in science AND theology -- have been the guys willing to go where the crowd was not. Had Martin Luther (and the boys) felt obligated to go with what “Theologians agree!” in his day, no reformation. And look at our own church’s origins; dissenters and visionaries, going against the flow of popular thought. The same thing happens all the time in science. Examples abound. And often those quirky, wrong headed scientists, who were courageous enough to go against the flow of commonly held thought, turned out to be RIGHT! Yet you have managed to conclude that there IS no dissent in science! Wow.

Stephen J Gould tried to establish ground rules for seeming tensions between religion and science with his NOMA formulations; non overlapping magisteria I think he called it. Equal, but separate. Sounded cool -- except that in real life it became obvious that when push came to shove, science ALWAYS trumped religion! Rendering his whole idea meaningless and even silly. I think you do something like that in your thinking too Alex. Further, I think you conflate your science and Christianity and your politics in ways that confuse many people. Like maybe me. And yet you feel free to criticize those of differing views when they make their OWN conflations…

Lastly, the first year in Med School they tell you that 50% of what you learn here science will later tell us is false. Seems maybe I’m as suspicious of “science” as perhaps you are of “religion”…

Oh PS -- your question what it would take to convince me of GW? For starters, if I saw some honesty in the handling of data that does not conform with preheld convictions amoung the GW crowd I would tend to take them more seriously. How about you? What would it take you?

[Peter]

Bob:

I agree with 90% of what you said. The last sentence just doesn't quite fit IMO. The GW crowd that you refer to is the entirety of the peer-reviewed scientific community.

And do you have at least some specific instances of the data handling that you could bring up? (At the risk of inflaming you will calls for specific complaints)