Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC

How does this site work?


The heresy of religious opposition to global warming

Michael Stafford ABC Religion and Ethics 19 Mar 2012
Those who oppose global warming on theological grounds have forgotten something fundamental about faith. If God is the author of the world, then the truth can never be heresy.



Do not be deceived. The opposition to the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) among some conservatives may, at times, hide behind a pseudo-scientific veneer. However, much of it is often really rooted in an anti-intellectual strain of religious fundamentalism.

It is this element - a barren theology that leaves no room for our God-given gifts of reason and discovery - that gives the opposition its implacable character.

Some say faith and reason are at war in the modern age. Not so for men like Congressman John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, who premises his rejection of AGW on scriptural passages promising that the Earth will not perish in a flood. For him, the war is over, and reason has been routed from the field.

Sadly, Shimkus is not alone. Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, has recently claimed that it is arrogant and "outrageous" to think that humans could alter the planet's climate - a climate that has been ordained by God. Citing to Genesis 8:22, he has argued that AGW cannot be occurring because "as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest." For Inhofe, God is firmly in control.

Rick Santorum, a leading Republican presidential contender and an outspoken opponent of AGW, has expressed similar sentiments, arguing that humans


In essence, the theological argument against AGW maintains, alternatively, that it is impossible because God would never permit it, because God controls climate, or because only God has the capacity to destroy the world. I suppose these individuals have never heard of nuclear weapons.

It is the religious aspect of the AGW debate that has taken it out of the realm of mere policy, and planted it firmly in the thick of the culture wars.

As a result, any understanding of opposition to AGW, or of the apparent anti-intellectualism in segments of the GOP today, must begin with a discussion of religion and theology - specifically, the anti-intellectual theology underpinning elements of the fundamentalist Christian Right. In this regard, climate denial is merely one aspect of a broader rejection of reason and scientific inquiry.

With respect to the environment, these theological strains tend to place great emphasis on humanity's "dominion" over the Earth, but downplay or entirely ignore our concomitant responsibility for the stewardship of it. In so doing, they provide a false reading of the Book of Genesis, one that ignores the connotations of nurturing and care present in the original Hebrew text in favour of an interpretation emphasizing naked power and supremacy.

Simply put, the Biblical mandate is to care for creation, not to commodify and exploit it.

In addition, AGW also touches on millennialist currents and visions prevalent in some streams of fundamentalist Christianity. This is significant. Stewardship is rooted in a concern for the future well-being of others. It matters little if you believe our world has no future, or that God will miraculously rescue you and spare you from the worst consequences of your own actions. In the face of very real problems, such an escape into magical thinking may temporarily relieve anxiety, but it actually accelerates the trajectory towards disaster.

In its opposition to AGW, the anti-intellectual theological strain also ignores the first of the cardinal virtues - prudence. Prudence speaks to the need for sagacity, for careful reflection and consideration. It is a requisite for effective stewardship, and effective political leadership.

Today, there is no debate in the scientific community about whether the Earth is warming - it is. There is also a nearly unanimous consensus that human activity significantly contributes to this warming. There is some debate over the severity of the consequences that will inure from this and, on the margins, over whether we can take any remedial measures that will slow, stop, or reverse this process.

The consensus position, however, is clear - we can say, with a great deal of confidence, that AGW will have a significant negative impact on human civilization and the natural world, and that there are practical steps that could be taken now to avoid, or at least mitigate, this fate.

Given the potential implications for humanity, it is reckless to ignore the broad scientific consensus on AGW. Doing so in the face of this evidence is tantamount to an abdication of both our duty to future generations, and of our duty to care for the natural world. It is an act of immense selfishness. After all, the natural world, our Earth, is a shared inheritance. And, as the late Admiral Hyman Rickover once said:


Placing religion and theology in the service of such selfishness and irresponsibility is an act of deep betrayal.

In the end, a theology that requires the rejection of empirical evidence on a variety of topics, and an escapist descent into magical thinking, is not a living faith. It is a dead one. Such a faith is not spiritual armour for the believer going out into the world, but rather, an intellectual tomb for someone hiding from it.

Let me suggest something different. Faith and reason are not at war - or at least, do not need to be. Religious belief and rational inquiry are not binary pairs of opposites. Indeed, at a fundamental level, both religion and science remind us of the deep mystery underpinning the world, and our existence in it.

Scientific inquiry also expands our knowledge of the natural world and the universe which, we are told in Genesis, is a reflection of God. This is why learning, the quest for knowledge and understanding, is a sacred thing. Or as Pope Benedict XVI has taught, religious faith "consolidates, integrates and illuminates truth[s] acquired by human reason."

For my own part, I think God gave us our minds, our intellects, and our capacity to reason, in the hope that we would put them to use advancing the common good.

In their opposition to AGW, religious conservatives imagine themselves as brave dissenters defending individual rights and biblical truth from yet another assault by a grasping, rapacious, regulatory state and the atheist liberals that run it.

They are wrong. They are actually reprising the role of the Inquisition in the trial of Galileo. For even as Shimkus, Inhofe, Santorum and those like them invoke the name of God, the scientific community, supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, answers back "and yet ... it warms."

Those who oppose AGW on theological grounds have forgotten something fundamental about faith. If God is the author of the world, then the truth, whatever it is, can never be a heresy, and people of faith ought never fear it.

Instead, what we should fear is the long-term consequences of religious faith being deployed against AGW. In the end, so long as humanity endures there will be seed time and a harvest.

Today, at a moment when we still have a fighting chance to avert the worst dangers posed by AGW, and secure a more decent future for all our progeny, Inhofe, Shimkus, and Santorum, are busy sowing seeds - seeds of falsehood, doubt, and delay. Their seeds will one day bloom into a bitter harvest, when the time for reaping comes.


Comments (62)

Add your comment

  • David Arthur :

    28 Mar 2012 2:11:19pm

    Several comment-posters to this page suggest that the recent decrease in the rate of ground-level atmospheric temperature rise is evidence that global warming either doesn't exist or has ceased. These people are wrong on both counts, because such suggestion neglects the numerous factors that account for the recent slowing in lower troposphere warming; these factors include the following.

    1. Sunlight-reflecting aerosols.

    2. Ocean absorbtion of retained heat - once the troposphere starts warming, additional heat is then transferred to the oceans, as well as increased retention by the ocean of insolation that penetrates the ocean surface.

    3. Phase change - ice => water,

    4. Phase change - increased water evaporation (the latter factor also facilitates heat transfer through the lower troposphere up to where water vapour condenses, but is only partial compensation for warming due to increased greenhouse gases).

    5. Decadal and longer fluctuations in ocean currents. For example, the start of this last decade was an El Nino period (elevated surface air temperatures), whereas the end of the decade is a La Nina period (generally lower surface air temperatures).

    It is erroneous to think that slowed rate of global average air temperature shows slowed warming. Oceans and icecaps are continuing to absorb heat, so that the overall rate of thermal energy accumulation is undiminished.

  • Peter :

    26 Mar 2012 3:26:21pm

    The effort to paint AGW as real IS a religious effort, there's no observation of anthropogenic global effect...whilst temperature is 'flat' still. The entire effort to paint CO2 as 'bad' rests on just 30 years ending the 20th century and such warming isn't unusual or unnatural. There's no fact of anthropogenic effect observed, political effort thus stagnates a dialogues trail on. Solar and Wind power cannot actually power its own production process, and Coal use isn't dangerous to the environment. Costs of such reducing are made via increased manufacture within China which uses little of its own productions of such artifacts.

  • stalga :

    25 Mar 2012 11:26:53pm

    Some people here are saying that coal fired power stations are the essential ingredient to relieve poverty. I disagree. The cost of producing solar cells has been reduced by 70% the last 18 months and wind turbines, even if they do require a gas boost are still a very clean energy. Nuclear is also clean energy if you ignore the potential for meltdowns. Coal may be plentiful but even it won't last forever. Using it for another one to two billion people to courting disaster.
    China is this week looking into it's pollution problem, Beijing the focus. The residents are unhappy and want action, many of them still live in poverty, they just get to breathe filthy air as well. Don't forget hydro, although dams that block rivers are not undesirable.
    The phenomenom of global dimming is retarding some of the effects of AGW, as a consequence the full picture will be clearer when significant steps are taken to reduce emissions and the skies clear. This has been shown in Europe when they reduced vehicle and other emissions. They had a measurable temperature increase in a only a few years as the air cleared.
    Luckily we have very few fundamentalist deniers in the lucky country but unfortunately we have Alan Jones, who thinks he is a God.
    Again, considering coal as an answer to poverty lacks some imagination. Rejecting AGW using the Bible is misguided and using the issue as a political football is immoral, sinful if you like.

  • gjds :

    24 Mar 2012 11:14:43am

    I find it unreasonable to equate politically active people in the USA who may choose to claim Biblical authority for their position as representing Christianity. I am always suspicious of those who mix politics with anything, including religion. Science has been greatly supported by those who profess the Faith in Christ for many centuries and it will continue to be so, because the scientific method essentially seeks correct answers to valid questions concerning our world.

    The facts that form the basis for the current debate on climate change are beyond dispute - greenhouse gases concentrations have been increasing and this is directly equated with the industrial activity mainly of the developed nations. The Greenhouse effect is also beyond dispute. Our concern should not be the diverse and sometimes extreme religious or atheistic views, but on the way to deal with the problem without causing bigger problems in the process. This is difficult and I think the political extremes make this even more difficult.

      • Murray Alfredson :

        26 Mar 2012 6:42:39pm

        Sorry if I have missed something, GJDS, but I did not see anyone equating those who for religious reasons (that is, certain literal and selective views of the Book of Genesis) with Christianity or Christians in general. Are you not putting up an Aunt Sally there, just to knock it down?

          • gjds :

            27 Mar 2012 10:48:01am

            I am assuming the article deals to a great extent with US people who claim biblical authority for their views.

              • Murray Alfredson :

                27 Mar 2012 9:23:53pm

                Exactly, GJDS. But there is no assumption made in the original article that such people are representative of Christianity.

              • gjds :

                28 Mar 2012 6:40:44pm

                I accept your point Murray; however people who discuss these matters while refering to the Bible are often identified as the Bible belt, evngelicals and so on - I still take these terms to refer to Christians. I certainly refer to myself as Christian, thus I try to make my point. On the matter of using Genesis as a source, I am puzzled, since a central theme in the account(s) is good and evil, death as a result of eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and so on. Thus seeking justification on the grounds 'as creatures of God to have dominion..' misses the point that we creatures of God are sinners (oops I should not use such an anachronsistic term?!) John Shimkus is attributed it seems to take comfort from a flood that destroyed humanity - such irony when we are discussing events that may be that cataclysmic.

  • Matthew :

    24 Mar 2012 12:05:51am

    I am pleased this was filed in Opinion and not the News section. here is more to than the debate than Pro-AGW Scientists and commentators knocking their opponents. Some of the facts put forward by the Pro-AGW crowd are conveniently brushed over.

  • David Palmer :

    22 Mar 2012 9:01:47pm

    My basic objection to this post is that it is written for a US context and then being posted here is implying that Christians in a Australia are equivalent to those naughty American fundamentalists.

    I think we have got to the point where pretty much everybody agrees a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a 1 deg C rise in global temperature as a direct result of increased CO2. There are legitimate questions about the degree to which that doubling of CO2 will indirectly act to cause other reinforcing effects (it all comes back to clouds and water vapour) that could raise the temperature by more than 1 deg C. There is genuine scientific uncertainty and disagreement over this issue.

    The far more important question not dealt with in this article is "if the temperature rise is going to be, say, 6 deg C over the next century due to a doubling of CO2 concentration with knock on effects, what actually can be done to prevent this occurring".

    The answer to this question given that the developing world is crying out for cheap energy, implying the burning of fossil fuels, is not much is going to happen to reduce the ramping up of atmospheric CO2 concentration any time soon.

    In the meantime the global temperature rise has pretty much stalled the past 15 years which raises interesting questions on that score. How long will this hiatus continue with what implications for future temperature rises?

    From a Christian point of view I'm all for the developing world gaining access to cheap energy to help pull their people out of poverty. This is what we have done in the West and I can't see the morality of us denying such an opportunity to China, India, Brazil, etc and regardless, its going to happen anyway!

      • James Picone :

        23 Mar 2012 12:53:07pm

        The currently-accepted range of feedbacks for doubling of CO2 is 0.5 to 3.5 - that is, total climate sensitivity is expected to be in the range 1.5-4.5c. 6 is right out. That's straight from the most recent IPCC report.

        Secondly, 15 years is barely long enough to observe long term trends. Have a glance at a graph of average surface temperature some time. This is a good one - . Notice that it's extremely noisy, and as a result it's easy to pick intervals such that every trend line has negative or only slightly postive as a result. Also notice that the general trend over the entire set is upwards - that's only HadCRUT3 - there's a more recent dataset that includes more information in arctic regions and some other minor changes - but that mostly changes the noise, not the overall signal. Here's a comparison: .

        Mostly, saying there's been no warming since 15 years ago is misunderstanding the nature of climate. 1998 was a La Nina year, and particularly warm, so baselining around about 1998 is a great way to make the graph look like there's no increase. If you look at a rolling five-year average the continued warming is much clearer.

          • David Palmer :

            23 Mar 2012 2:22:23pm

            Hi James,

            Fair response. I say let's wait and see.

            There will be no action on reducing CO2 any time soon short of a world wide depression (always possible).

            What would you say if after 20 years the global temperature gradient remained flat, or even extending out 30 years? Hopefully we will have a better handle on climate science.

            As a general principle humans have always been good at adapting to new conditions as they come along - part of being made in the image of God.

              • Murray Alfredson :

                23 Mar 2012 5:31:51pm

                You seem to regard homo sapiens as the only species that counts, David. That is a very blinkered view. Speciesism, like many other -isms, has a certain arrogance about it.

              • David Palmer :

                24 Mar 2012 7:10:34am

                Big assumption there Murray.

                I believe humans are uniquely made in the image of God with unique capabilities possessed by no other creatures for purposes spelt out in the first two chapters of Genesis.

              • Murray Alfredson :

                27 Mar 2012 9:30:11pm

                Exactly, David. That ancient text does say something like that. It seems to me no excuse for disregarding the interests of other species. Humans are as much animals as are insects, fish, or other mammals. Have you never seen a spider or a swan in pain, for example?

                You might give special value to the word of the Bible. Most of humanity does not. Nor do apes, monkeys and cattle.

              • James Picone :

                23 Mar 2012 5:48:07pm

                Not much we can do other than waiting and seeing - as you say, governments around the world don't have the collective strength of will to do a damn about emissions. That doesn't have any bearing on whether we should do something about it, of course, but it's the truth we're going to have to live with - we've rather missed our chance to avoid significant warming.

                I'm a software engineer, not a climate scientist, so my opinion on the size of trends should be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd be surprised if there was a thirty (30) year span without a statistically significant warming signal, assuming we hadn't had significant negative forcings like extreme vulcanism, large meteroite impacts, or a significant nuclear war. Or some kind of geoengineering. Twenty years I would be a bit less worried about, but I'd still expect to see something of a warming signal, it just might be less obvious.

                Yeah, humans are good at adapting to things - it's probably one of the things evolution selected our intelligence for. Global warming is unlikely to lead to the extinction of humanity. It just might make things unpleasant, is all. Obviously if we don't do anything about it in the long, long term we've got the risk of making the oceans anoxic, but that would take centuries of increasing emissions, and surely we as a species aren't /that/ stupid.

              • Patrick :

                26 Mar 2012 2:19:43am

                Hello David,

                The best evidence shows the hottest last ten years on an increasing temperature rise, not something that you would wait and see! Wait and see what? We are not made in the image of god. We can change our energy production to emit less CO2 which is the best way to adapt!

              • David Palmer :

                27 Mar 2012 6:25:23am

                Hi Patrick,

                The reason why it can be claimed that the last decade was the warmest is that there was a steepish rise in global temperature through the 1980's up to 1997 and then the levelling off occurred post 1997. Let's wait and see what turns up this decade.

                We are made in the image of God and it is only your unbelief that prevents you from seeing this for now.

                Unfortunately we are not going to reduce CO2 emissions and wishing it so won't change anything. Emissions aren't increasing to any great extent in the West but they are increasing rapidly in the developing world. This information is readily accessible.

                Wind farms and solar can't do it, nuclear could but is expensive and is tied up in red tape principally because of concerns re waste, etc

      • Martin Snigg :

        23 Mar 2012 1:18:49pm

        Agreed David.

        Only the willfully blind can't see how a rejection of the Gospels leads to abortion, infanticide, killing of defectives, disdain for the poor, domination by God substitutes, like pantheism inspired environmentalism that unites global statists today. "Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." GK Chesterton.

        The last thing godless liberals care about when they counsel for an end to coal is the welfare of the poor in developing countries. Freeman Dyson cuts through the green cant on that score.

      • David Arthur :

        23 Mar 2012 1:43:54pm

        My basic objection to David Palmer's post is that it sets up a false claim - namely that the developing world's need to develop is most efficiently achieved by use of fossil fuels.

        Implicit in this, of course, is that David Palmer can only be clueless as to the environmental effects of further fossil fuel use (including that of the developed world).

        If earth had no water, then a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase average temperatures by about 1 deg C, as Mr Palmer writes. However, earth does have some water; increasing air temperatures increases water evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapour content. Because water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, the average temperature rise caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 must also factor in warming due to additional atmospheric water vapour, so that average temperature rise will exceed 3 deg C.

        Now, the vast bulk of the additional retained thermal energy will report to the oceans, which function like the radiator fluid in your car - that is, they transfer it from hot areas (near the equator) to where it is cold (the Poles). That's why Arctic temperature rise in particular is already and will continue to be way more than the global average 3 deg C.

        This will melt lots of icecaps, so that all the poor people will need their newfound wealth to buy the boats to transport themselves to higher ground at higher latitude. They'll need to pay more for food, as climate change disrupts agriculture, and they'll be buying more medicines as tropical diseases spread.

        Still, when they resettle on the newly thawed Siberian tundra, they'll have plenty of methane, bubbling up from the former permafrost, with which to sterilise the needles for the vaccines. Whiloe this will add to the atmosphere's CO2, that's nothing compared to the warming that will be caused by any methane not converted to CO2.

        Thanks, Mr Palmer.

          • David Palmer :

            23 Mar 2012 2:32:30pm

            No David Palmer isn’t clueless.

            What David Arthur has done is trot out all the kinds of things that might happen under certain scenarios. He may be right, he may not be.

            What we do know is that the developing world, actually China at present to be followed by India and other developing nations with Brazil being another big one, are going the cheap energy route to pull people out of poverty and they will do so regardless of what David Palmer or David Arthur think about it. Not only that but windfarms, the “darling of the West”, when they get much above 5% penetration require gas fired turbine backup thereby destroying their CO2 free credentials, whilst the shut down of CO2 free nuclear reactors in Germany and Japan will increase each country's CO2 emissions as they turn to coal and gas to make up the shortfall in base load.

              • David Arthur :

                23 Mar 2012 7:00:42pm

                What David Arthur has done is trot out exactly what is happening, right now, in the real world.

                China is already committed to capping its coal imports by 2015, India will be making a motza exporting its thorium technology to the world by the end of this decade, and Brazil is a world leader in biofuels. China will be making its motza selling PV panels, wind turbines and High Speed Rail technology.

                The Good News is, developing nations do not need to follow a high fossil fuel use trajectory to improved standards of living.

                It's nations like Australia, nothing more than a quarry for coal that no-one will want to buy, who will be the poor white trash of Asia.

              • David Palmer :

                27 Mar 2012 6:30:25am

                David Arthur, you are poorly informed. There is a difference between what people say they will do and what they are doing. Agencies like the IEA and the US EIA are providing continuous updates on emissions, use of fossil fuels, the minuscule energy output of solar panels.

                Stop dreaming, get real!

              • David Arthur :

                28 Mar 2012 8:57:24am

                David Palmer notes that IEA and US EIA are reporting no decline in fossil fuel use.

                Doubtless, this is correct. Large-scale replacement of existing power-generating infrastructure hasn't yet started.

                So what? We know it's going to happen, and I suggest David Palmer keep himself informed by regular perusal of "Climate Spectator" (

              • David Arthur :

                24 Mar 2012 4:23:20pm

                David Palmer writes that: "I think we have got to the point where pretty much everybody agrees a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a 1 deg C rise in global temperature as a direct result of increased CO2."

                This is not correct, Mr Palmer; the increase in atmospheric CO2 from Ice Age to pre-Industrial climate was from ~200 ppm to ~300 ppm; this resulted in a 4 deg C increase in global average temperature. Atmospheric CO2 has now approximately 400 ppm; we can therefore expect a further global average temperature rise from pre-Industrial climate of 2.6 deg C, thanks to the logarithmic nature of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and "equilibrium" global average temperature.

                To date, we have seen an average temperature rise from pre-Industrial climate of 0.8 deg C. That means that, even with no further addition to atmospheric CO2, a further 1.8 deg C rise is already "locked in"; the reason we haven't seen it yet is that the oceans are still catching up with atmospheric warming to date.

                So much for the promise of the economists, diplomats and politicians that we will aim to avoid global average temperature rise from pre-Industrial climate of more than 2 deg C; that target is already not possible.

              • James Picone :

                26 Mar 2012 12:57:35pm

                The 1c/doubling of CO2 over 100 years is the pure radiative forcing change, not the total temperature change, and it's definitely correct. You can calculate it from physics. It's just the extra heat put into the atmosphere /solely/ from having more CO2.

                The actual temperature range includes the feedback effects, and the current IPCC estimate is 1.5-4.5c over 100 years from a doubling of CO2.

          • James Picone :

            23 Mar 2012 5:51:14pm

            Realclimate has had a number of fascinating posts discussing the possibility of explosive release of methane from clathrates and the effects on the climate - they mostly concluded that it would be unpleasant but not catastrophic, and that over the medium term CO2 still dominates the radiative forcing - mostly because of methane's short atmospheric lifetime, I believe. Link here:

              • David Arthur :

                23 Mar 2012 7:03:00pm

                Google Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

                An Anthropocene Thermal Maximum remains a real possibility over the next 20 millenia.

      • Murray Alfredson :

        23 Mar 2012 5:34:52pm

        I am not sure what you imagine the source of 'cheap energy' will be. Fossil fuels are going up in price as they become less readily available. I much doubt their 'cheapness' in the future.

          • David Palmer :

            24 Mar 2012 1:58:09pm


            The information on fossil fuel reserves and price trends as well as the comparative costs of electricity generation from coal, gas, wind, solar and nuclear is readily available.

            I find generally that and the writings of Peter Lang and Martin Nicholson to be helpful sources of dependable information as well as the annual surveys of the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

            Currently, the carbon tax on fossil fuel costs, needs to be about $100 for wind-farms to no longer need the current regime of Government financial support and advantageous feed in tariffs. Solar needs a carbon tax anywhere between $250-$400.

            The fossil fuel in short supply is oil. There are several centuries worth of coal reserves left while the book on gas reserves is currently being rewritten with the discovering of vast reserves of shale gas now accessible as a result of the so called fracking process, and of course the potential for nuclear power based on uranium and thorium is huge going into the future.

            Gas prices have been falling and make the case for nuclear power more difficult to make to say nothing of the uncompetiveness (and irregularity) of wind-farms and solar power.

              • Murray Alfredson :

                27 Mar 2012 9:32:41pm

                High time, I think, that you went back about 200 years in your reading to great Christian clergyman, Malthus.

  • Martin Snigg :

    22 Mar 2012 10:50:53am

    Obviously this whole piece hinges on what the author takes to be the clear deliverances of climate science, i.e CAGW. But that just makes me laugh. Observations show no warming for 15 years, against the predictions generated from computer models constructed under this CAGW hypothesis.

    Yet it was upon this hypothesis that political elites determined to disgorge hundreds of billions in general revenue in re-education projects and climate science grants. . The auditing of the scientific results generated is carried out mostly by volunteers, because individuals dissenting from the orthodoxy that frames the funding run the risk of being labelled 'deniers' and institutions an end to their grant money.

    Climate Gate 1.0 and 2.0. shows scientists (now counterfeited as priests) aren't immune to the blandishments of money and power, and why calls for a seperation of science and state are getting louder.

    "The history of the west is a story of the state assimilating every useful institution into itself" DB Hart.

    Various taxes on all energetic activities in society is quite baldly about a massive transfer of wealth to 'planet saving' liberal elites. Children now learn from a very young age in schools that our illustrious rulers are saviours of the world.

    If the author wants to wear the livery of empiricism then be serious about it, if he wants to highlight the corruptions of thought that come from faulty theologies he first ought to follow the money. And then explain how the a/theologies of liberal elites function to sustain a movement that would otherwise completely collapse in the face of real world observations. He would note the striking similarities between the ad hoc explanations of phenomena and attendant change in language (global warming/cooling, climate change, carbon[sic] pollution, clean energy future, new economy, etc) and those of Creationists to new physical data. But Creationists are not in a position to do a even a minuscule fraction of the damage CAGW believers can do.

    There are plenty enough reasons to promote frugality and simplicity against soul destroying consumerism but none of them involve the concomitant enriching and empowering of a political class almost impregnable now ensconced in their Leviathan 'market-state'.

      • Jake :

        22 Mar 2012 1:38:58pm

        Foolish comments and attempts at mud-slinging Martin.

        Warming of the globe has continued unabated, with the last decade the warmest on record (may I suggest checking with say, NASA, instead of ''.

        Re Climate gate, over half a dozen independent inquiries have cleared the scientists in question of any wrongdoing or misrepresentation - but hey, keep on slinging...

        PS Care tto address the issue of 'prudence' (or the precautionary principle) raised - even if the evidence was only 50/50 that AGW was happening, would you be willing to take that chance, given what it entails?

          • Martin Snigg :

            22 Mar 2012 2:58:57pm

            Well you know what they say mud slingers in glass houses. Well honed intellects and trained probosci such as the likes of you posses should have no trouble negotiating their way round Anthony Watts' site Jake. - searching for those hearings you mentioned, NASA, just what the warming trend actually reveals, and some numbers to put on that precautionary principle of yours. The science is 'settled' afterall, expose Watts' most popular science blog on the net and its foolish denizens, you can probably get a grant for it.

            I think I'll apply the precautionary principle to the likely venality of Governments spending vasts amounts of other people's money and their university climate science gatekeepers. Thanks all the same for the invitation to a climate science debate.

              • Patrick :

                26 Mar 2012 2:31:40am

                Hello again Martin,

                Please illuminate us to your understanding of the planet. For example how old is this world? Did dinosaurs live with human kind? Where is your evidence for a non warming world? How is that everyone else is wrong and you are right?

      • David Arthur :

        22 Mar 2012 4:47:34pm

        Well done, Martin. You've parsed the sociology and spirituality of the High Priests of the Church of Climate Scientology brilliantly.

        The one thing you haven't done is get in touch with reality at all. Perhaps a few simple facts might help you.

        1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

        2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

        3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

        4. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature.

        5. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.

        6. Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere, and transfers a lot of heat to both Arctic and Antarctic.

        7. Arctic sea ice is melting, so that summertime sunlight is being absorbed in exposed ocean rather than reflected off ice.

        8. Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting, increasing the rate of sea level rise. The rate of ice melt is accelerating as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase.

        9. In the Arctic, tipping points have been crossed. Permafrost is thawing, releasing stored methane and carbon dioxide, and warming Siberian continental shelf is causing release of methane from submarine methane clathrates.

      • James Picone :

        22 Mar 2012 4:53:38pm

        Martin Snigg, once again, opening his mouth only to change feet.

        Observations over the last 15 years show a clear warming signal, well within the error bars of the models you're deriding. The original "No warming in the last n years!" meme comes from 2007, with 'n' set to 10 years, and was simply an example of poor statistics and obvious cherry picking - 1997 was a particularly warm year, 2007 was a particularly cold year, and the claim of 'no warming' was based solely on drawing a line from the 1997 point to the 2007 point and observing that the slope was negative. There's so much wrong with that it's not even clear where to begin. And that's before we even get onto the point that 15 years is maybe only just barely enough time for a warming signal to be unequivocal, that no increase in average surface temperature doesn't necessarily imply no AGW (we might have increased negative forcings as well - particulates in the atmosphere are one of the big ones there. It's why after major volcanic eruptions the average surface temperature tends to drop), and that average surface temperature is extremely chaotic on a year-to-year basis (compare a five-year average to the year-to-year values, for example).

        Your claim that it's some kind of self-sustaining groupthink driven by money doesn't stack up against the behaviour of scientists in general - see, for example, relativity, or the big bang theory, which became widely accepted physics despite treading on the ideological toes of the entire physics community. As I'm sure you're aware the /name/ 'Big Bang' was intended as a pejorative epithet! If a scientists produced quality research demonstrating that negative feedbacks were substantial and so climate sensitivity is likely low, they would win a Nobel prize, not the scorn of their peers.

        The money isn't actually a great deal, and most of it isn't going to the scientists concerned. No scientist is getting rich off of climate science. Believing that this kind of groupthink would occur in the modern scientific community is pretty much unbelievable - it suggests, to me, that you've never really met a scientist and don't understand their viewpoint. Good scientists live to challenge orthodoxy. That's the fastest way to build a reputation in science.

        A reference to 'climategate' reveals that you're mostly getting your information from the denialist echo chamber - wattsupwiththat has never been the most reliable of sources. An in-context reading of the emails produced reveal absolutely nothing shocking. Essentially all that's in there is the discovery (shock, horror!) that scientists have strong opinions about loudmouths who don't have enough education to back up their opinion shrieking that they're wrong about something they've spent years researching.

        I agree that state and science should be separate, in the sense that the state shouldn't interfere in scientific research. Of course, when it comes to

          • James Picone :

            23 Mar 2012 12:28:26pm

            Comment got snipped. Here's the rest:

            I agree that state and science should be separate, in the sense that the state shouldn't interfere in scientific research. Of course, when it comes to climate research, overwhelmingly state interference has been to try and suppress the results - for example, NASA under George Bush. If you're talking about no state funding for science, you can bugger off. It's a miniscule amount of money and it's about the only way science will ever get funded, because Eris knows the market won't fund anything speculative.

            The science says nothing about how to prevent AGW, other than "Produce less greenhouse gases". Individual scientists probably have opinions, and the opinions of world leaders have mostly converged on market-based mechanisms like a price on carbon or emissions permits because that's what they did with SOx and NOx, and it worked pretty well for them, because neoliberal economics is the ideology in power, and because reifying externalities is a tradition in economics. Alleging some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. If anything properly implemented greenhouse gas markets should be transferring money to the poor more than your imaginary 'elites'.

            The most basic principles of the AGW argument come from basic physics, and absolutely cannot be argued - more CO2 increases the surface temperature of Earth on average, and radiative forcing from doubling CO2 is 1c over 100 years. There is observational evidence of an increase in radiative forcing from more greenhouse gases - the increase in average surface temperature over the last five decades or so, accompanied by the stratosphere cooling, exactly as predicted. There is observational evidence that humans are increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.

            The only point where any kind of 'scientific' argument against AGW can get any traction is solely in the magnitude of the feedbacks - IPCC says 0.5-3.5c for a doubling of CO2 over 100 years, denialists mostly don't say anything because they're too busy repeating discredited memes from five years ago and the majority of them don't even know what 'feedbacks' are. If you want to play the empiricism game, educate yourself instead of playing unsubstantiated conspiracy games.

          • Martin Snigg :

            23 Mar 2012 12:41:19pm

            It suffices to say not persuaded by the comical 'scientists are special snowflakes' argument. We're did they find this Christlike ability to confront politico-areligious powers? (Lysenkoism, Aristotelian physical science, Eugenics, Phrenology, weapons research, global thermonuclear/biological extinction of all life on the planet)Any cursory look at the history of science shows the same stakeholding, the same human corruption - that's the pattern of human history.

            What demands explanation today is how/why proportionate media interest in mercenary behaviour isn't given to subscribers to CAGW orthodoxy when the differential in funding is enormous.


            I know scientists just fine, top marks in my organic chemistry degree and successful (I might say) science educator for 8 years.

              • James Picone :

                23 Mar 2012 6:22:34pm

                A list of things some scientists got wrong (or things that are arguably inethical) is not a list of ways scientists have fallen to groupthink or a demand for funding. Get a group of people who tend to be young, idealistic, interested in finding out how the world works, and a bit outside the social norm and you'll find a strong tendency to clash with authority if and when it seems appropriate. See, for example, Galileo, and again, relativity (which was a paradigm fundamentally different to Newtonian physics), the Big Bang model, which again was loathed and scorned by several major astrophysicists before the data forced them to change their mind. Consider Dr. Marshall and Dr. Warren, who went against the majority opinion of scientists on the causes of peptic ulcers and proved them wrong. The history of science is full of people taking a principled stand.

                The media applies a disproportionate amount of criticism to scientists working in the AGW field than is warranted given the evidence. The media doesn't go digging for dirt on, for example, researchers in evolution. Why should they do it to climate scientists working in a field that's nearly as well evidenced?

                Had a look through the first few articles in the link you posted, Joanne Nova appears big on rhetoric, light on substance, pretty much as I expected. No evidence of corruption at the level of scientists.

                I'm amazed that somebody with a science education could be so hostile to scientists, and so far into the deep end of religion. You're one hell of an outlier.

              • Martin Snigg :

                27 Mar 2012 3:04:12pm

                So dedication of 11 years of my life to physical science is evidence of hostility to scientists? and you're to be trusted interpreting evidence coming from embryonic and politically compromised global 'warming?' science?

                Religious neutrality is a myth James, my suggestion is to learn to swim because you're drowning in yours.

              • James Picone :

                27 Mar 2012 6:32:24pm

                No, the evidence of your hostility to (some) scientists is that you say things like "embryonic and politically compromised global 'warming?' science?". You're smearing an entire field of scientists by claiming that they're producing fraudulent results in order to prop up a theory for political reasons. What is that but hostility, directed towards scientists?

                Not sure what religious neutrality has to do with anything, but my opinions on religions have very little to do with my opinions on science.

                I'm somewhat curious as to how you justify a disbelief AGW. You can't claim that humans aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere, because there's observational evidence of that. You can't claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't a radiative forcing into the atmosphere, because you can calculate that from basic physics. So as far as I can tell you're left claiming that the feedbacks are estimated way too high, but I don't see your reasoning for why that's the case. Care to elaborate?

  • J.Brian Waddington :

    22 Mar 2012 12:34:31am

    I agree that taken as a whole the Hebrew scriptures do indeed teach that we are called to be stewards of our Mother Earth. But Gen. 1:28 declares we have 'dominion'. That word and the way it is used is the same word and usage as for an absolute monarch that can do whatever they want to their subjects. I wish I was wrong but I'm not.

      • Patrick :

        26 Mar 2012 2:42:42am

        Hello J.Brian

        Ummm, we are actually able to change the way we do things if we wish to for the better

  • Murray Alfredson :

    21 Mar 2012 10:52:37am

    Wow! It looks as though Grant from down below copped a well deserved serving. Stick your neck out with such nonsense, and it deserves the chop.

      • lostnfound :

        22 Mar 2012 12:51:50am

        "Stick your neck out with such nonsense, and it deserves the chop."

        Then I should make it known that Grant is not alone in his creationist stance. I support his comments in general, though like many creationists I am rather circumspect about AGW. On balance I think its probably true, (albeit overstated in its consequences) despite my disgreement with the supposed historical record compiled by scientists to support the notion.

        But my real disagreement is with this article's attempt to align anti-AGW with religious fundamentalists, at least in Australia.

        Here, the anti-AGW campaign has some high-profile spokesmen in Andrew Bolt and Ian Plimer. Try telling them that they're religious fundamentalists.

          • Just the facts :

            22 Mar 2012 9:29:39am

            The point of the article is to highlight the fact that a great deal of the opposition to AGW doesn't come from "people in the know" .. but rather is based on an interpretation of scripture that people, particularly people with a creationist mindset feel has a greater truth than that of those people best trained to understand the data interpret.

            Evolution denial and AGW denial have a similar pathology when its done on purely religious grounds. There is a wealth of corroborative data to support both and yet the argument is always pushed into the few remaining unknowns and this is leveraged out in an attempt to create a credible level of uncertainty.

            Its perfectly possible to have valid doubts about all sorts of aspects of AGW - given the specialists complex nature of the data - its better left to the experts to sort this out and go with the expert consensus than to expect that there can be meaningful, informed discussion around this in the public forum anymore than I would expect the untrained masses to meaningfully discuss string theory and respect the laymans opposition to that.

          • Murray Alfredson :

            22 Mar 2012 6:13:36pm

            Dear Mr or Ms Lostnfound

            1. There is no need for a Christian to interpret the Genesis stories literally. There is also no evidence that they are historically reliable. The probabilities are that they are myth of a sort commonly developed by ancient peoples.

            2. The article does, as Just the facts points out, give an account of thinking by climate change deniers in the USA who happen also to be fundamentalist Christians. He shows with examples that among influential circles there is a tendency to deny climate change for reasons that have nothing to do with the science, but stem from their theology. I find that account quite convincing as a description of the culture involved.

            3. And yes, one implication is that those who deny climate change and human involvement in it on theological grounds lack any claim to scientific credibility.

              • lostnfound :

                23 Mar 2012 8:49:53pm

                Christianity without a literal Genesis is an empty shell. Only a literal genesis gives the basis for scripture's contention that death was not part of God's original creation. Death is not 'natural', but is the result of us cutting ourselves off from God through sin. Only then does Christ's death and resurrection become meaningful - to restore our connection to God and thus defeat death.

                Almost any other interpretation of Genesis, particularly long-age interpretations, results in death being part of God's creation from the beginning, thus Christ's death cannot 'restore' anything.

                Yes I know that most of today's theologians would disagree. But then sometimes being 'progressive' simply means straying from the true path.

                As for the article - there may be some truth in the connections drawn. However it is far from the complete story. Nobody has risen to my challenge of fitting Andrew Bolt or Ian Plimer into this theory.

  • David Arthur :

    20 Mar 2012 11:41:30pm


      • Stevo :

        21 Mar 2012 9:40:24am

        Point well made David!

        As for Grant's argument that the world could be just 6,000 years old, well this just says it all about the sceptics doesn't it!

      • Murray Alfredson :

        21 Mar 2012 10:47:26am

        What a thought, David! It could make a fine myth poem, perhaps a dramatic monologue.

        But do use the the subjunctive when appropriate, please: 'If I were Satan ...'

        Sorry about that. I am both a language conservative and a language stretcher.

          • David Arthur :

            21 Mar 2012 2:30:43pm

            Thanks for the correction regarding my grammar.

            "If I was Satan ..."
            If I were Satan ..."

            Hmm ... as well as being grammatically correct, the latter also cuts it as poetry, the former smacks of incoherence.

              • Murray Alfredson :

                22 Mar 2012 6:17:12pm

                Only if the poetry be provisional or conditional, David.

                You are welcome. But for me the weakening of the subjunctive in modern English means a weakening in our capacity to write in a supposing rather than an indicative way.

  • Grant Vandersee :

    20 Mar 2012 2:32:19pm

    Michael, Quite an interesting read, and some worthwhile points made. However there are some parts with which I must take issue.

    1. Conservative (or fundamentalist) Christianity is not anti-intellectual. There may be some who are, but as a whole, this philosophy is not against scientific research and learning.
    2. There are still many scientists who disagree over whether the world is warming at all, or at least, whether the current warming is just part of regular cycles seen before.
    3. The majority of conservative Christians do actually favour caring for the Earth & environment, but do not endorse wild environmentalist ideas presented by extremists.
    4. Taking into consideration a proper reading of Genesis, and the scientific work that supports the idea of a world approximately 6000 years old, and worldwide flood about 4500 years ago, the scientific research covering millions of years used for climate change suddenly has a whole new meaning. This raises many questions which have not been answered.

    So, finally, thank you for looking at this issue carefully, but please try and refrain from generalisations about Christian groups and science etc.


      • Murray Alfredson :

        20 Mar 2012 9:37:20pm

        Grant: An odd post indeed. You make a set of vague assertions, but not even an example to show what you mean, let alone any indication of evidence.

        What, for example, is the content of support by conservative Christians caring for the environment?

        What is a 'proper' reading of Genesis. To me, a proper reading is as several among many ancient and beautiful creation myths.

        I have never seen any respectable scientific opinion that the world is only 6000 years old, or that there was a universal flood a mere 4500 years ago. That takes us back to about the time of the building of the pyramids.

        Who are these vaguely stated 'many' scientists who dispute global warming, all evidence to the contrary. Among many thousands of scientists, what proportion assert such nonsense?

        I think the issue is not about about fundamentalist Christians being anti-intellectual, but about whether they be open minded and flexible on their thinking, whether they can take on board new thinking without feeling their core values under threat. Because their present stances and machinations suggest that they are more about defending an entrenched position than accommodating to new knowledge, and often not so new, as in Darwin's seminal work.

      • Daniel :

        20 Mar 2012 10:14:53pm

        Grant, point number 4 is the clearest evidence imaginable that your first point (number 1.) is clearly false, especially in regard to your own views.

        Anyone who thinks the earth (or the universe) is only 6000 years old (or even ten or a thousand times that figure), has clearly lost all touch with reality as understood by about a dozen scientific disciplines, from physics to genetics to biology to astronomy to chemistry to nuclear physics . . . . and so on.

        It is also alien to almost every theological institution on the planet, and 100% of theological institutions attached to universities.

        It is possible to have a very high IQ and still be taken in by the weirdest cults on the planet. But the word anti-intellectual describes an opposition to either the majority of the world's learning or specific aspects of it.

        You belong to the former, in that you appear to disagree with the foundations of almost all the sciences taught from primary school through to tertiary institutions. Not to mention just about every theological body on the planet.

      • Byron Smith :

        21 Mar 2012 3:42:34am

        2. Find me a reputable publishing climate scientist who holds either of the positions you mention (no warming and/or nothing unusual in the warming (including no anthropogenic influence)). Now find me "many". There is no scientific body of national or international standing that disputes the basics of climate science, and a huge number have risked their most valuable asset (their reputation) in affirming them.

        3. Extremists are those who believe we can fundamentally alter the composition of the ocean and atmosphere without serious consequence for human life and the rest of the created order.

        4. Your young earth creationist assumptions are showing and do little to support your first claim.

        Grace & peace,

      • David Arthur :

        21 Mar 2012 9:51:58am

        Grant, in response to your interesting take on reality.

        1. Fundamentalist Christianity is completely and determinedly anti-intellectual, and Denies all evidence to the contrary. Witness, for example, Fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to Deny evolution.

        2. There are many well-renumerated mouthpieces for climate Denialism, some of whom have an education and career in science.

        3. If the majority of conservative Christians see climate change as wild or extremist environmentalism, then they are clueless about the following straightforward facts.
        a. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.
        b. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.
        d. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature.
        e. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.
        f. Ocean is thermally coupled with atmosphere.

        4. A proper reading of Genesis: In Chapter 1, Man is Created last, and is a mere part of Creation, or Chapter 2, in which Man is created first and names all creatures which God "brings forth"; it is only by being so named that each act of Creation is completed.


      • Spinoosa :

        22 Mar 2012 1:19:32pm

        Well, Grant, you really are a case in point. What I'd like to know is how you justify failing to take into account all the other creation myths, you know, the ones about giant snakes and flying turtles etc etc in your "reasoning", and if you included them, how interesting would be our religiously-informed "scientific" understanding of the world. Well, perhaps "interesting" is not quite the word.

  • Murray Alfredson :

    19 Mar 2012 9:59:22pm

    An interesting argument, Michael, and interesting observations on the strange ways of thought of the religious right in the USA.

    Your argument, that the world is warming despite the theological arguments to the contrary, should put the lie to those arguments.

    You argue, of course, from within a Christian frame of reference. Move outside that frame, and the theological argument against global warming becomes mere nonsense, not mere heresy. I am outside that frame. One can take several positions, one completely atheistic, but another, that god did not display great wisdom and foresight in making creatures such as our own species, that has overrun the planet and wreaked such havoc in doing so.

On the Wider Web

On Monastic Papacies

Chad Pecknold, Ethika Politika

If we can see past the "optionality" of Benedict and Francis, perhaps we can see the deeper truth that the change each of them represents is not the change from one to the other, but the change they both seek for each of us. They both call us to repentance. They both call us to conversion. They both know that it is only by turning to face Truth Itself that we truly can be changed.

The Long, Inglorious March of Gentrification

Adam Brereton, Guardian

The Sydney Sunday Assembly isn't much deeper than consumption, dressed up as community, for yuppies who want to feel good.

Best of

Pig poo power

Pig poo is becoming a popular form of renewable energy (ABC News)

Pork Queensland says its farmers are making big progress in using methane from pig poo to produce electricity.


on Twitter for the latest Religion & Ethics updates.



Manage My Subscription

How Does this Site Work?
