The GeoChristian

The Earth. Christianity. They go together.

Rush is wrong — Analyzing Limbaugh’s statement on God and global warming

On August 12, 2013, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement on his radio program:

“If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”

This, of course, is utter nonsense. Unfortunately, millions of American political conservatives and Evangelicals believe Rush is right on just about everything, but Limbaugh is clearly wrong this time. The error of his statement is not in whether or not climate change is occurring, nor in whether or not observed changes are due to human activities, but in making a false connection between belief in God and whether or not human activities can affect the climate.

To start with, there is no connection between “believing in God”—or even more specifically being a Christian—and having a certain position on a scientific issue such as climate change. The Bible does say that the creation groans because of human sin (Romans 8:22), so we should expect there to be environmental consequences for our actions, but the Bible does not say what those consequences will be. Ascertaining the ramifications of our actions is part of the human task of understanding the creation, expressed in our age through science. Limbaugh’s statement is the theological equivalent of saying, “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in genetics” (or chemical bonding theory, or plate tectonics, or general relativity, etc.).

Second, there are sincere and intelligent believers on both sides of this issue—scientists, Bible scholars, and laypersons. All of these have intellectual reasons—biblical and scientific—for holding their positions.

And finally and most importantly, the theological basis of Limbaugh’s statement is flawed. When I’ve heard this sort of statement before, it has been based on the premise that God has built sufficient robustness into his creation to offset or minimize the damage caused by humans. An illustration of this from climate science is the concept of a negative feedback. A good example of negative feedback is how the atmosphere responds to a global temperature increase. If the temperature of Earth were to increase, evaporation of water from oceans and other bodies of water would also increase, which would lead to greater global cloud cover, which would increase the albedo (reflectivity) of Earth’s atmosphere in regards to visible light, which would result in more solar energy being reflected back into space, which would result in a lowering of global temperatures which would offset the initial warming.  This is all good and true, but it isn’t easy to measure or predict the degree to which the increased albedo would offset the initial increase in temperature. But that is a scientific issue, not something to be decided by unsubstantiated theological pronouncements.

If we apply the same sort of reasoning to the human body—another part of God’s creation—the error becomes obvious. The human body uses negative feedbacks as well. If someone smokes a cigarette, the body responds in ways to offset the introduction of foreign material. If a person smokes just one cigarette in their lifetime, the chances that there will be long-term negative consequences, such as emphysema or lung cancer, are negligible. If a person smokes a pack of cigarettes a day over a period of decades, the odds become virtually certain that there will be negative health consequences. This is despite the fact that most of the air that enters a heavy smoker’s lungs in the course of those decades is the ordinary nitrogen-oxygen-argon mix of the atmosphere.

The Genesis creation account states that the Earth God made was good, and that he intended its occupants—human and non-human—to flourish. Once sin entered the picture, human management of the creation could still maintain (or even enhance) that flourishing to some degree, but now the possibility also exists that we can cause serious damage to the creation. It is clear that our activities can all too easily lead in the direction of harming the creation—its water, land, air, and organisms—rather than healing it. The “global warming couldn’t happen” position ignores the reality and disastrous consequences of human sin, and leads many to bury their heads in the sand in the face of potential environmental consequences of that sin.

When Christians enter into the climate change debate (or any other environmental or natural resources discussion) with an attitude of “humans can’t mess up the Earth all that much,” it is inevitable that they will come to conclusions like “global warming, if it is happening, couldn’t be caused by humans.” This is analogous to atheists starting with the assumption that there is no God, and then coming to a “scientific” conclusion that God is not necessary for the origin of the universe.

My short response to Rush Limbaugh’s statement would be:

“If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe that human activities have no environmental consequences.”

One who accepts Limbaugh’s philosophy towards the environment will automatically conclude that the idea of human-caused global warming is wrong at best and an evil Satanic hoax at worst. Scientific evidence will be deemed “good” if it supports their side, and “bad” if it does not. But there is no Biblical support for having this “it simply cannot happen” approach to the scientific question of climate change.

On the other hand, if one adopts what I consider to be a more biblically accurate approach—acknowledging that we do not know the limits to the consequences of our actions—then they can follow the evidence where it leads. Most scientists who are actually involved in climate change research, including Christian scientists, are presently convinced that the evidence points towards a significant human impact on Earth’s climate. That is not the end of the matter, but objectively, that is where things stand right now.

Grace and Peace

==================================================

The Christian Post has printed at least three guest columns which discuss Rush Limbaugh’s statement. The first and third of these are critical of Limbaugh; the second is in agreement. Here are some excerpts:

1. Climate Change: Evangelical Scientists Say Limbaugh Wrong, Faith and Science Complement One Another — by Katharine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman, Evangelicals, and meteorology/climatology professors at Texas Tech and the University of Washington.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think we exist. In other words that evangelical scientists cannot subscribe to the evidence of global warming.

——————–

Talk radio personalities often make hyperbolic statements. It is what their listeners expect and want to hear. But in this instance, Rush’s uninformed rhetoric is demeaning to Christians who care deeply about what humans are doing to God’s Creation and ignorant of the consequences that future generations will face if we don’t respond quickly to the challenge of climate change.

We are both atmospheric scientists who study climate change, having earned advanced degrees in our respective fields and having devoted our lives to increasing knowledge through scientific research. We know climate change is real, that most of it is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community. We are also evangelical Christians who believe that God created the world in which we live.

——————–

We were appalled at the ignorance behind Rush Limbaugh’s statement but we weren’t surprised. One of us had previously been dismissed by him as a “climate babe.”

This isn’t meant to invoke pity, but rather to highlight the absurdity of our public debate around faith and climate change. Rush Limbaugh has a very big megaphone but no expertise or formal credentials to be considered an expert on the changes in climate occurring all around us. He has no theological training or record of leadership within a faith community. He’s simply a radio show host willing to say controversial things, regardless of whether they are true or not.

2. God, Rush, and Global Warming — by Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Ironically, these climate scientists-Katharine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman-acknowledged at the outset, “Talk radio personalities often make hyperbolic statements ….” Why is that ironic? Because, having acknowledged that, they then took Limbaugh literally-precisely what one must not do with hyperbole-and castigated him for meaning something they acknowledge he didn’t.

——————–

So, what was Limbaugh’s point when he said, “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade warming”? Not that no theist can believe that human emissions of greenhouse gases can contribute positively to earth’s temperature. Rather, that it is difficult to reconcile belief in the infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, and infinitely faithful God of the Bible with belief that a minuscule change in atmospheric chemistry-raising CO2 from 27 thousandths of 1 percent to 54 thousandths of 1 percent of the atmosphere-is likely to cause catastrophic harm to human and other ecosystems. It’s that latter belief that’s encompassed by the shorthand “global warming.”

——————–

Now I ask you, does an infinitely wise designer plan something to be so fragile that a proportionately tiny stress will cause it to collapse? Does a good architect, for instance, design a building so that if you lean against a wall, the rest of the building reacts by magnifying the stress of your weight until the building collapses?

But that’s what’s assumed in the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (CAGW): that a proportionately tiny stress can cause catastrophic consequences. The theory is that CO2’s rising from 27 thousandths of 1 percent to 54 thousandths of 1 percent of the atmosphere-which itself is a relatively tiny part of the entire climate system, which includes the oceans, land masses, all living things, and even energy from the sun and cosmic rays from stars in distant galaxies-will raise earth’s temperature so much as to threaten catastrophic harm to human and other life.

Such a result would come only from a design that made positive feedbacks vastly outweigh negative feedbacks. In other words, it would make the rest of the climate system magnify rather than offset the warming effect of CO2. Yet natural systems are dominated by negative rather than positive feedbacks-otherwise they’d all have collapsed long ago.

So God’s wisdom in designing earth’s climate system is hard to reconcile with belief in CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming].

——————–

So, does belief in God make belief in CAGW utterly impossible? No. But it’s very difficult to reconcile the two beliefs.

3. Are Climate Skeptics Ignoring God’s Design? — by David Jenkins, president of ConservAmerica Education Fund (ConservAmerica used to be called Republicans for Environmental Protection).

Beisner writes “The Bible teaches that earth and all its subsystems – including the climate system – are the product of a God who is an infinitely wise Designer.” Nothing to quibble with there, but he then concludes – as Limbaugh has – that an infinitely wise designer would not create something so fragile that mankind can mess it up.

That view is at odds with both Biblical scripture and physical evidence.

——————–

Just as God has charged us with the responsibility to care for His creation, he has also granted us the ability to harm it. Man has demonstrated the capacity to level mountains, foul the air and water, drive animal species to extinction, develop weapons capable of mass destruction, acidify rain and damage the earth’s ozone layer.

While nature is resilient over time, it is also intricate and fragile. The smallest bacteria or virus can kill the largest person or animal. A minute amount of airborne mercury can travel up the food chain and ultimately harm an unborn child.

Another climate-related viewpoint Beisner and others have expressed is that fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are gifts that God wants us to dig up and use without limitation.

One must be careful when ascribing intent to God, especially when the claim appears to run counter to His design.

——————–

Does it not then stand to reason that God, after designing the earth’s processes to sequester excess carbon, might prefer that we respect His design and look for other ways to heat our homes and power our cars?

Beisner and Limbaugh, in peddling the notion that God designed the earth and its atmosphere to be immune from mankind’s actions, are also implying that we can do anything we want to it without serious consequence.

Does that sound like something God would say?

Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.

==================================================

Notes:

I was alerted to Rush Limbaugh’s statement by Climate Conservative: Are Climate Skeptics Ignoring God’s Design?

October 24, 2013 - Posted by | Christianity, Climate Change, Creation Care, Environment, Ethics | , ,

7 Comments »

  1. Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing.

    Comment by Dan Pangburn | October 25, 2013

  2. Dan – curve fitting isn’t that hard of an exercise. When I was working at the National Weather Service River Forecast Center in Salt Lake City during the 1980’s, there was a fellow who gained quite a bit of publicity by showing that the water elevation of the Great Salt Lake could be predicted using the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

    Comment by tkhelble | October 28, 2013

  3. Curve fitting is a mathematical exercise that has no predictive ability. My work uses the conservation of energy. Do you really think that discovering that the time-integral of sunspot numbers correlates with the average global temperature trend since 1610 is curve fitting? Or that if you modulate that trend with the net of ocean oscillations you correlate with average global temperatures since before 1900 with an accuracy of 90%?

    Comment by Dan Pangburn | October 28, 2013

  4. I don’t think there were very many ocean temperature stations and continuous, accurate sunspot observations before 1900. 1980 for that matter.

    Comment by tkhelble | October 30, 2013

  5. On August 12, 2013, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement on his radio program: “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming.”

    When one sentence of 14 words are quoted with neither context nor reference except for a date, and especially from Rush Limbaugh, it is reasonable to wonder whether some relevant context to that quote has been omitted (deliberately or otherwise).

    And, in fact, on August 12, Rush Limbaugh quoted hardline-abortionist John Kerry: John Kerry, our esteemed secretary of state, said that climate change is our challenge, “a challenge to our responsibilities as the safe guarders of God’s creation.” The safe guarders. It would obviously be the safe guardians. The safe guarders. So John Kerry says that climate change is a challenge to our responsibility as the safe guarders of God’s creation. What about God’s creation called a fetus, Secretary Kerry? What is your responsibility as a safe guarder there?

    And then Rush stated: “See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming. You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can’t create. It’s always, in fact, been one of the reasons for my anti-manmade global warming stance. The vanity, I mean, these people on the one hand, we’re no different than a mouse or a rat. If you’re listening to the animal rights activists, we are the pollutants of this planet. If it weren’t for humanity, the militant environmentalist wackos, if it weren’t for humanity, the earth would be pristine and wonderful and beautiful. Nobody would see it. According to them, we’re different. We are not as entitled to life on this planet as other creatures because we destroy it.

    “But how can we destroy it when we’re no different than the lowest life forms? And then on the other end, the vanity and the arrogance, we are so powerful and we are so omnipotent, that we can destroy. We can’t even stop a rain shower, but we can destroy the climate. And how? With barbecue pits and automobiles, particularly SUVs. It’s absurd. But nevertheless the esteemed secretary is running around saying that climate change is a challenge to our responsibilities as the safe guarders of God’s creation. Just ask him, what about God’s creation called a fetus?”

    What Rush was responding to was the utter hypocrisy of hardline pro-abortionists/globalwarmists, and ersatz Christians, like John Kerry, who denigrate God’s creation of humanity as worthless bits of cells to be aborted, and at the same time claim humanity is responsible for (and capable of) saving God’s creation, which somehow the Creator of creation is not capable of doing without our efforts.

    Rush wasn’t dealing with the pro/con scientific arguments about the global warming mantra.

    Comment by Carl Vehse | November 1, 2013

  6. Carl – you can cite context for the particular quote Kevin used here, but Rush has made his feelings known on global warming many other times. Check out this recent transcript from September 13, 2013: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/17/global_warming_scientists_we_were_wrong .

    Comment by tkhelble | November 1, 2013

  7. Carl — Thanks for your comment.

    I am well aware of both the immediate and broader contexts of Rush Limbaugh’s quote. The immediate context was his response to Kerry, and the broader context is Limbaugh’s long history of anti-environmentalism. If I had somehow twisted Limbaugh’s position, then I would be guilty of taking him out of context. But I did not distort anything he said.

    There is more than one way to wrong about the environment. Obviously, the anti-human fringe of the environmental movement is wrong (and dangerously so). But many on the right—exemplified by Limbaugh—have gone to the other extreme. This is the extreme of “humans cannot seriously hurt the planet” when we know that we, in our sinful state, are quite capable of screwing things up, whether on a local or global scale.

    You stated that “Rush wasn’t dealing with the pro/con scientific arguments about the global warming mantra.” I wasn’t either. I was addressing a deeper philosophical issue about how we look at the earth. If our starting point is incorrect, as in “If you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming,” then we will be hindered in our investigations of the earth.

    Can we harm the atmosphere? The answer to this question is certainly yes. Can we affect earth’s climate? I have no doubt that the answer to this question is also yes. The debate then should be about to what degree we can affect the climate, and the answer will be somewhere between minimal and catastrophic. But this is a scientific question, not, as I said, a question to be settled by an unsubstantiated theological proclamation. And that is the problem I have with Limbaugh.

    Comment by geochristian | November 1, 2013


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: