God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion (42 page)

One technique is to argue that “both sides” of an issue are entitled to equal time, even when one side has all the data and successful models while the other side has nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Although Oreskes and Conway do not discuss it, we can see the same strategies being used by the opponents of evolution. Right-wing politicians in several states have tried and in some cases succeeded in making it mandatory to teach “criticisms” of Darwinian evolution, which usually means sneaking divine creationism into schools (as we saw in
chapter 4
, this has been declared unconstitutional by the courts).
³⁷

Currently the big battle between industry-funded scientists and the majority of experts is over the existence and possible consequences of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). Since those who denied that smoking causes cancer, that CFCs generate the ozone hole, and that pollution from fossil fuels causes serious acid rain have been proven wrong, it seems a good guess that the global warming deniers, many of them the same people, are wrong too.

GLOBAL WARMING

There is no doubt that Earth is getting warmer. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists claim both that the magnitude of the trend cannot be explained as part of the normal cycles of warming and cooling that Earth has experienced in the past and that humans are a major cause.
³⁸
A 2009 survey showed that 97.4 percent of active publishers on climate change agreed that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
³⁹

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a huge effort that has produced numerous technical reports and disseminated public information on the climate problem.
⁴⁰
Its Fourth Assessment Report, published in
2007, declared, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “anthropogenic warming over the last three decades
likely
had a discernable influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems.”
⁴¹
The IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts.

Increased warming is said to be the result of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by humanity's massive use of fossil fuels. Climate scientists warn that if the nations of the world do not take drastic action soon to reduce these emissions, we are heading for drastic climate changes and flooding of vast coastal areas now occupied by millions of people. Already polar ice is melting dramatically.
⁴²
A 2011 report by the National Research Council states, “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
⁴³

Fierce political opposition has arisen, especially among conservatives in the United States, who object to placing any limits on fossil fuels because they say it will have significant impact on the economy (and their own well-oiled pocketbooks). A number of scientists have joined in the fray by expressing skepticism that human activity plays a significant role in global warming, suggesting instead that the current warming trend is part of natural climate fluctuations. They argue that the models used by climate scientists in their calculations cannot be trusted because the models have too many uncertainties and the climate scientists make too many unjustified assumptions.

It is beyond the scope of this book to delve deeply and definitively into either the science or politics of global warming. Let me just consider the role of religion in what should be primarily a scientific question. Both sides of the issue claim the other is letting their “religion” rule over their science. Perhaps the best-known scientist who is skeptical of AGW is the brilliant physicist Freeman Dyson, who in the 1940s was one of the founders of the highly successful theory of quantum electrodynamics described in
chapter 6
.
⁴⁴
He writes: “There is a worldwide secular religion, which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.”
⁴⁵

Certainly extreme environmentalism, as well as nazism, fascism, and
communism, share some of the trappings of religion, namely irrational ideologies. Indeed, defining religion to encompass the latter three serves to defuse the argument so often heard that religion had nothing to do with the mass murders of the twentieth century (see
chapter 3
).

For our purposes, however, let us use “religion” to imply belief in a transcendent world beyond matter. No doubt many environmentalists have such a belief, but a spirit world is not a part of the doctrines of environmentalism.

Evidence exists that many who deny the dangers of global warming do so out of religious conviction. Yet another Pew Research Center survey asked the following question: “Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?” Let me just give the percentages of thise who said yes and agreed that it is the result of human activity:
⁴⁶

Also interesting was the result that 21 percent of all Americans, 18 percent of the people unaffiliated with religion, and 31 percent of white evangelicals said there was no global warming at all. While mainline Protestants and Catholics are close to the national average, they still are below that of the unaffiliated. Surely the fact that 58 percent who are unaffiliated support the scientific consensus while less than 50 percent of believers do is evidence for some correlation between religion and the denial of global warming.

The role of religion in global warming denialism can be seen in the political battles over the teaching of evolution.
⁴⁷
In 2010, the Kentucky Legislature introduced a bill encouraging teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” A similar bill was passed in Louisiana in 2008, and in 2009 the Texas Board of Education required that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming.
⁴⁸

Demanding equal time for opposing views on evolution and global warming is like
demanding equal time for phlogiston and flat-Earth theories. But what is the connection between global warming and evolution? The only one I can think of is religion.

Those who consider the Bible to be the literal world of God and who reject evolution also take seriously the last book of the New Testament,
Revelation
, which describes the end of times. What's more, the Jesus of the Gospels predicted that the Son of Man would return in a generation to set up the Kingdom of God on Earth (Matt. 16:28, Matt. 24:34, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, and Luke 9:27). Of course he didn't, but for two-thousand-plus years Christians have always thought the end was right around the corner.
⁴⁹
Why worry about global warming if the Kingdom of God is at hand?

At this writing, John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives. He has argued that climate change is a myth because God told Noah he would never again destroy Earth by flood (Gen 8:21–22). Shimkus can be seen on video saying: “The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood…. I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”
⁵⁰

In 2009, Representative “Smokey Joe” Barton, Republican from Texas, told C-Span:

I would also point out that CO
₂
, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term…. I am creating it [CO
₂
] as I talk to you. [Carbon dioxide is] in your Coca-Cola, your Dr Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.

A lot of the CO
₂
that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can't regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the U.S. Congress can regulate God.

If you think greenhouse gases are bad, life couldn't exist without greenhouse gases…. So, there is a, there is a climate theory—and it's a theory, it's not a fact, it's never been proven—that increasing concentrations of CO
₂
in the upper atmosphere somehow interact to trap more heat than the atmosphere would otherwise.
⁵¹

Personally, I can't see how pumping back into the atmosphere, over only a century or two, carbon that took millions of years to accumulate in the Earth can be harmless.

Perhaps the most vocal person denying global warming is Republican senator James Inhofe. In a speech on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, Inhofe called catastrophic global warming “a hoax.” He said that “satellite data, confirmed by NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] balloon data, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century.”
⁵²
This is false. The satellite data in fact corroborated the warming trend reported from surface measurements. Here's the summary of the NOAA report:

Global temperatures in 2004 were 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the long-term (1880–2003) average, ranking 2004 the fourth warmest year on record. The warmest year on record is 1998, having an anomaly of 0.63°C (1.13°F), followed by 2002 and 2003 both having an anomaly of 0.56°C (1.01°F). Land temperatures in 2004 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking fourth in the period of record while ocean temperatures were third warmest with 0.42°C (0.76°F) above the 1880–2003 mean.
⁵³

Inhofe is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and, characteristically, also promotes evangelical causes. He has used government funds at least twenty times to travel to Africa on missions that he himself has referred to publically as “Jesus things.” There he has “played an active role in the faith-based aspect of our anti-AIDS campaign,” according to a Ugandan diplomat.
⁵⁴

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation has issued what it calls “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.” Here's what it says (quoted exactly):

WHAT WE BELIEVE

1. 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. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
   
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
   
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
   
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
   

WHAT WE DENY

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
   
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
   
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
   
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
   ⁵⁵
   

This statement has been endorsed by approximately five hundred people, including a large number of scientists and other academics.
⁵⁶
It is not simply the view of a small fringe group but that of the large majority of American evangelicals.

The Cornwall Alliance has also produced a DVD series titled
Resisting the Green Dragon: A Biblical Response to One of the Greatest Deceptions of Our Day
that attacks environmentalism as a “new religion” that “threatens the sanctity of life. If you buy the series you will” learn how the Bible powerfully confronts environmental fears and how—in God's wise design—people and nature can thrive together.
⁵⁷