Christian academics speak up on climate

This was already posted here on Sharper Iron a few weeks ago, unless Speaker Boehner returned their letter forcing them to send it again. But here is the group of evangelicals opposed to climate change hysteria:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/cornwall-alliance-scholars/

As I pointed out the last time this letter was linked here, that of those who signed on to the letter to Speaker Boehner demanding the government take action, there were faculty from Cornerstone, Cedarville, and Bob Jones University.

Is that being fundamentally true to the Word of God does not necessarily make you smart on certain secular matters.

Barry, this issue isn’t entirely secular, but I do find it strange that evangelicals, even conservative, fundamentalist places like BJU have people who believe our secular government needs to act by bringing upon our society economic calamity for the purpose of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Sure, over time there are gradual changes in topography and weather conditions. I know of one place where there are now three-story beach houses, where a couple hundred years ago, it was water. Temperatures go up, and they go down. Landslides happen. Earthquakes. Volcano eruptions. Hurricanes. And these things have far more power than man’s poor ability to add or detract. There are simply things outside of our control.

But if you read the letter, they are basing their urgency on ONE year. 2012. The weather happenings of ONE year are supposed to make us all cower in fear and petition our government to pass all sorts of laws that will greatly restrict free enterprise and greatly harm the fragile financial condition of the most vulnerable among us.

But why, as evangelicals, petition the federal government here as the answer? The same government responsible for giving us a debt liability of almost 17 trillion? If some of the radicals in government got their way, the damage done to our economy would be such that these evangelical faculty members who petitioned the government via this letter would be out of jobs. Many of these schools are struggling to enroll students now, but double the cost of gasoline and heating oil, and ban coal production, or any number of other restrictions being considered, and places like BJU could be cut in half as to their enrollment. Many smaller schools would close their doors.

I am trying to think of a New Testament illustration where someone like Paul asked Christians to petition the Roman government to end REAL abuses like human slavery or infanticide, both common problems in the first century. I cannot find any, and cannot understand why these evangelicals would make this part of their mission. Yes we should be good stewards of creation, but the dubious claims of the climate change zealots seem well beyond the mission of the church.

I believe fundamentalism has room for varied positions on this issue. Even the most ardent libertarian believes in some role in government, especially for defense and mobilization during catastrophes. To someone who believes global warming is an impending catastrophe then, in their eyes, it is reasonable to expect government to act.

Now, even though there is room for fundamentalism for varied positions on global warming, there is not a whole lot of room for common sense which a lot of times seems absent amongst scientists. Yes, the planet over the course of the century has gotten warmer, but what scientists recommend us do is not possible to implement, let alone do much to stop the planet’s warming. In the meantime people’s livelihoods are compromised by these restrictions like coal miners in WV. The restrictions effect our national security by not letting the US be energy self sufficient so less profits go to the Middle East.

Common sense violation, not Biblical violation, IMO.

I find it strange that someone even has to point out that there is room under the fundamentalist tent for those that believe in global warming.

And I find it strange that people who are not true experts in this area feel comfortable calling people unintelligent because they believe in global warming.

Apologies to Bones McCoy:
I’m a theologian, people, not a meteorologist!

I am very skeptical of global warming; I am equally skeptical of knee-jerk reactions that say it couldn’t be so. Maybe years down the road this will be worth my consideration, but for now, “Wait and see and don’t overreact” seems like a good course of action (or inaction :) ).

“I believe fundamentalism has room for varied positions on this issue. Even the most ardent libertarian believes in some role in government, especially for defense and mobilization during catastrophes. To someone who believes global warming is an impending catastrophe then, in their eyes, it is reasonable to expect government to act.”

Herein is the problem with their line of thinking. Is it truly reasonable to expect the government to act? This very question assumes the government can solve the “problem” and it cannot. If all that the climate change/global warming alarmists are saying is true, there is simply nothing the US government can do to stop it. They cannot balance a budget much less rescue its own citizens during hurricane Katrina. But stop global weather patterns that involve all the large nations of the world, involve the sun, and involve so many factors so much larger than man? The American media, not to mention the American public educational system has so conditioned everyone to think that the US government is as close to all-powerful as any institution can get.

What is the US population? Not quite 5% of the world’s population. And yet somehow our government is supposed to pass laws that bring changes to the cycles of global weather, and these laws will be so clever and effective that they will overcome the vast majority of countries in the world that do not pass these laws. Some countries are going down this road. Last winter in the UK there were elderly people who died in their own homes unable to afford to turn up the heat. Is that what we want here?

But the very question of climate change/global warming is far from settled. The media and many in higher education have tried hard to turn this into a “settled” issue where anyone who denies it is treated like they belong to the “Flat-earth society.” Shouldn’t it concern us that there has been such a strong push for action based on what might happen? Especially considering the highly politicized nature of those loudest voices pushing for action? Just 13 years ago, Al Gore predicted that unless radical action was taken, the earth would be a goner in 15 years. There are only 2 years left in that prediction. Do you suppose 2 years from now MSNBC, CNN or any of them will mention the passing of this failed prediction? Shouldn’t that be a red flag that there is more going on here than a heartfelt concern for the environment?

“And I find it strange that people who are not true experts in this area feel comfortable calling people unintelligent because they believe in global warming.”

Greg, nobody here was saying people are unintelligent. There are brilliant scientists on both sides of this issue, and there is certainly room for folks who are not professional scientists to be well read in a scientific field and embrace the views of scientists who have presented a compelling argument . My contention is that this is as much of a political issue as it is an issue of science. It is an issue that involves what might happen, and then demanding radical action that would bring real harm to real people. The science of this is far from settled, despite the peer pressure applied by popular media.

[Darrell Post]

“And I find it strange that people who are not true experts in this area feel comfortable calling people unintelligent because they believe in global warming.”

Greg, nobody here was saying people are unintelligent. There are brilliant scientists on both sides of this issue, and there is certainly room for folks who are not professional scientists to be well read in a scientific field and embrace the views of scientists who have presented a compelling argument . My contention is that this is as much of a political issue as it is an issue of science. It is an issue that involves what might happen, and then demanding radical action that would bring real harm to real people. The science of this is far from settled, despite the peer pressure applied by popular media.

I was reacting to BarryL’s comment “What this proves is that being fundamentally true to the Word of God does not necessarily make you smart on certain secular matters.”

Silly me. And Here I thought God controlled the weather.

Genesis 6:5-9:19 (Earth destroyed by flood, people and animals killed)
Exodus 9:23-29 (hail and fire from heaven on Egypt)
Joshua 10:11 (hail on the Amorites, etc.)
I Samuel 7:10 (thunder disperses the Philistines)
Nahum 1:3 (judgment with whirlwind and drought)
Leviticus 26:19-20 (rainless sky, parched earth)
Deuteronomy 11:13-15 (rain as reward for obedience)
Deuteronomy 28:24 (drought punishment)
I Samuel 12:18 (thunder and rain to get people’s attention)
II Samuel 21:1 (drought and famine)
I Kings 8:35-36 (good weather reward)
I Kings 16:30-18:45 (rain withheld and given)
Hosea 13:15 (dry weather)
Amos 4:7 (rain given and withheld from certain cities)
Jonah 1:4,10-15 (man punished and redirected by sea storm)
Zechariah 14:17 (rain withheld as judgment)
Revelation 16:21 (hailstone punishment)

Perhaps if we really believe in the God of the Bible, we should pray more for fair weather and a good harvest.

Genesis 8:21-22

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse1 the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”