The climate debate has been raging for some time, but recently it has reached fevor pitch. Normally, I don't post much on climate, but I felt this conversation needs to be explored in light of recent events. First, reports of hotter summers poured in. Then colder winters. There was the so-called "climategate" scandal. And now we're getting reports on the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
I have said for some time that this discussion must be built upon honesty and integrity. We need to be honest about what the facts are and we must have the integrity to admit that we (most of us) are not experts. We can't pretend like we are scientists, economists, policy experts, ethicists and theologians. Instead, we should learn what we can and make prudent decisions based on the information available.
That's why I decided to take some time interviewing Dr. Katherine Hayhoe, a geoscientist and climate scientist at Texas Tech University. Katherine served as an expert reviewer with the IPCC panel, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Most interesting, her husband is Andrew Farley, an evangelical pastor and author of The Naked Gospel. Katharine and Andrew recently co-wrote A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions. I asked her a few straightforward questions and gave her the opportunity to answer without censure. Take a look, and leave comments below.
JM: I’ve heard a lot of people say “we’ve reached a consensus on climate change” as if to say, “the debate is over.” Is the debate over? Is there really agreement about the causes of climate change among those seriously involved?
KH: Among climate scientists—people who spend their lives researching our world—there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change, and the fact that humans are the primary cause. It is primarily laypeople, such as talk show hosts, or those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, who are perpetuating the idea that there is no scientific consensus.
The basic science that explains what is happening to our world has been well-established for more than two hundred years. Our earth has a natural blanket around it—a blanket perfectly suited for life. This blanket is made up of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Together, these gases keep our world about 70 degrees F warmer than it would be otherwise.
So what’s the problem? Well, since the Industrial Revolution, we have been burning increasing amounts of coal, gas, and oil. Every time we burn these fuels, we produce extra carbon dioxide. We can measure it at the tailpipe of any car, or the smokestack of any factor.
As a result, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased far beyond their natural levels. And carbon dioxide is one of those heat-trapping gases, whose properties can be measured in any lab. (I’ve even done it myself!) So pouring all these extra heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere is like putting an extra blanket around the Earth. And the Earth is starting to sweat.
There’s certainly lots of media hype about a great debate. But there’s really nothing left to debate about the science. When an organization like NASA posts their climate data for the world to see, we must conclude that either all of NASA’s scientists and engineers have been duped, or quite possibly, there’s some truth to this warming.
JM: In your book, A Climate for Change, you contend that global warming is something that Christians should be talking about. How so?
First, we have to be honest about the reality that the Bible makes no mention of climate change and says nothing specific about planet care, in and of itself.
As Christians, however, we are called to love God and love others.
Climate change is already affecting our world, particularly the poor and the disadvantaged who lack the resources to adapt. This is true both here in the United States, as well as in third world countries. Recognizing the reality of climate change and reaching out to help our global neighbors is a tangible expression of this love.
Already, we’ve seen the first American refugees from climate change. Just this year, the inhabitants of Newtok, Alaska were forced to abandon their homes forever as warming temperatures caused the ground beneath them to flood, and melt away. And what has happened in Newtok is just a small “snapshot” of what we might expect over the longer term if we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that climate change is not happening.
Our book is not a guilt trip. As my co-author Andrew Farley, an evangelical pastor, points out in his book The Naked Gospel, as Christians we are motivated by freedom and love, not guilt or duty. Climate change represents an opportunity, perhaps the greatest of our generation, to “serve one another in love.”
JM: You note in your book that Christians are skeptical when it comes to this issue. I’ve certainly found that to be true (if not the understatement of the century). Why do you think this is the case?
KH: Many Christians feel like they’ve been burned by scientists in past, perhaps on issues related to the sanctity of life, or the creation-evolution debate. Complicating the issue is the fact that the science of climate change has become so politicized, albeit falsely so. The result is that conservatives, and many Christians, tend to view climate change as yet another environment issue driven by a liberal agenda with ulterior motives.
I can’t speak to past experiences. But in the case of climate change, I can say that there is truly something different happening here. We are talking about measurements from thermometers, which are neither Republican or Democrat; and records of melting glaciers, rising seas, and many other changes in our natural world, none of which are either conservative or liberal.
The science of climate change is not about blue politics, or red politics, or even green politics. Rather, it’s about thermometers and temperature readings, and measurements that we humans have been making for hundreds of years.
If this warming is occurring, and all the climate data we have indicates it is, then what we Christians should be doing is using our sound minds and God-given wisdom to seek solutions. It’s no different to what we should do if we find that our economy is tanking, or that crime is rampant in our streets. We need to seek a solution to the facts that confront us, because it is both sensible and right to do so.
JM: A lot of people like to point to an unusually cold winter or cooler year and poke fun at climate change proponents. Why is this bad logic?
KH: We’re all guilty of that. Every time it’s particularly cold out, it’s hard to resist complaining about how we’d like a little global warming now, please! But what we need to understand is that weather is not climate.
Weather is inherently unpredictable and chaotic. Weather is what happens from day to day, and even from year to year. Weather is that record snowfall, or that unusually hot year.
Climate, on the other hand, is predictable—if we know what is making it change. Climate is the long-term statistics of weather, over decades to centuries. Climate is the average conditions you would expect if you visited Florida in January, for example, or Alaska instead.
These are two very different things. And so when we talk about “climate change,” we have to take a step back and look at the big picture before we can figure out what’s going on. It’s about changes that have happened over twenty, fifty, and even a hundred years; not about what happens from day to day, or even from year to year.
JM: I heard on the news the other day that global warming has stopped, and we’ve even experienced global cooling recently. Is that true?
KH: Back in the 1970s, a handful of scientific articles and one Newsweek story speculated that we might be headed for a period of global cooling—over the next 10,000 years or so, that is! Today, more than ten thousand scientific articles, and perhaps even millions of news stories, have shown that instead, the world is warming; and warming very quickly.
Even still, mentions of “global cooling” have become popular lately. But there is no truth at all to the idea. In fact, the only way anyone can come up with such a notion is by carefully selecting the year 1998 (a particularly warm el Niño year) and the year 2008 (a particularly cool year) and drawing a straight line from one single year to the other. This is not a truthful picture to present to the public, but this is precisely what has been done by some, to purport that we’re experiencing a recent cooling.
In contrast, all we have to do is look at our long-term temperature records to recognize how we are currently experiencing a warming that is “off the charts” in comparison with anything we saw before the dawn of the Industrial Age. It’s warming, and it is an unnatural warming that coincides perfectly with our production of heat-trapping gases over the last 150 years.
In our book, “A Climate for Change,” we include a graph that shows how people arrive at the illusion of cooling, and clearly indicates the reality of warming. Our hope is that people will recognize that, no matter how convincing some voices seem to be, there are some simple facts that anyone and everyone can look at for themselves. And those facts show a consistent warming over time.
JM: Some sincere and respected scientists believe that the warming we’ve experienced over the last century or so is largely due to natural cycles, but you disagree. Why?
KH: No sincere scientist who has looked at the data can claim that what we’re experiencing today resembles any natural cycle we have seen in the past.
It’s interesting that some who believe in a young Earth (maybe 6,000-10,000 years old) are the same who argue that our current warming is part of a natural cycle. Both cannot possibly be true!
First, if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, there are no natural cycles that are even noteworthy. Therefore, to say this is just a natural cycle like we’ve seen in the past, we are committing to an old Earth, not a young Earth.
But what if we are ok with the idea of an old Earth? Is this argument valid then?
It’s true that past records indicate the Earth has passed through long ice ages, and warm interglacial periods, on times scales of hundreds of thousands of years. But even if we take those time scales into account, we still don’t see any conditions like what we are seeing today. Today, levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are “off the charts” in comparison with anything documented in the past. Natural cycles cannot explain our current warming.
JM: You are a renowned climate scientist and a “Bible-believing Christian.” It is an interesting combination. Do your colleagues or friends at church ever tease you for having a foot in two different worlds?
KH: My colleagues have always been respectful of my beliefs. There are even some who share them. But I know some Christians do feel that I have a foot in both worlds; or, even worse, am trying to serve two masters!
I don’t see it that way at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Rather than having a foot in two very different worlds, I believe I’ve got both feet firmly planted on a God-given and God-driven reality.
I believe that nature is God’s other “book,” displaying his character and creativity. For me, scientific inquiry is an attempt to unravel what God was thinking when he designed the world.
I’m often asked whether I believe, or have faith in, global warming. My response to that is “no!” The Apostle Paul tells us that, “faith … is the evidence of things not seen.” I have faith in God, although I have not seen him. But science is exactly the opposite. Science is about accumulating the evidence of things that can be seen. Science then identifies the best explanation to account for what has been seen.
Global warming is simply the only explanation that fits the overwhelming number of facts that scientists accumulated about our world. And so that is why I can be a Christian, and I can believe that God has created this wonderful world for us, and at the same time accept that all the facts indicate that we have unwittingly made choices that have contributed to global warming. There is no contradiction there at all.
JM: Recently, a scandal arose when emails by well-known climate scientists, stolen from a British research lab, reportedly discussed manipulating data. Will this impact the conversation at all?
KH: A few emails written by a handful of the thousands of scientists who study climate change does not alter the fact that data collected from all over the world, for more than 150 years, shows a consistent warming.
This conclusion doesn’t just rest on one set of temperature data or tree rings. Sea level is rising; ice sheets are melting; spring is coming earlier in the year; insect, bird, and animal species are now seen further north than ever before. More than 25,000 of these types of changes have been seen around the world, all of them telling us that the world is warming.
We need to be careful how much we pay attention to media hype that is not based on solid fact. In “A Climate for Change,” we provide evidence for the scientific consensus that the world is warming: from the National Academies of 32 nations, from every major scientific organization in the United States, and even from authorities such as the Pentagon, which views climate change as a serious threat to our national security.
So in assessing the implications of the stolen emails for the overall science of climate change, we need to take a step back and look at the big picture. We have to weigh those few emails from certain scientists against an overwhelming, worldwide consensus from thousands of researchers.
I’m not defending these scientists’ actions or their words, because I don’t know them or work with them at all. What I am saying is that this is no call for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Climate change is a very real problem, and we need to move ahead by looking for solutions, no longer dragging our feet every time the media tells us to.
In writing “A Climate For Change” we hope that our readers will see that we ourselves have no political agenda. Neither of us have any stake in whether or not certain policies are adopted. The issue of climate change is not political for us at all. It is about sharing the truth displayed in God’s world with our brothers and sisters. With right information comes free choice.
Interested? Order A Climate for Change or The Naked Gospel NOW!
Tyler P said:
"In writing “A Climate For Change” we hope that our readers will see that we ourselves have no political agenda. Neither of us have any stake in whether or not certain policies are adopted. The issue of climate change is not political for us at all. It is about sharing the truth displayed in God’s world with our brothers and sisters. With right information comes free choice."
That's a nice brothers and sisters in Christ spin on it, but we need some more questions answered. There were no questions on the proposed policies from our world "leaders." Will THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY save the planet from Global Warming? Do you feel that it is possible that these leaders are fueling the fire of Climate Change and creating a global panic so they can expedite their own agenda in the name of environmentalism? If you have seen the debts and deficits of involved nations, you can see an obvious conflict of interest. Politicians don't see climate problems, they see dollar signs and achieving more power in the name of Mother Nature. "We don't want to impose the largest tax ever, but we have to. So sorry." Yeah right. That's the problems skeptics have. This has everything to do with politics and how our lives will be changed. The policies proposed to fight climate change are SOCIALISM in sheep skin. Think like a politician and not a scientist for this. The debates and interviews need to shift to whether these proposed policies will even do us any good. Why not invest heavily in R&D instead of finding a new revenue for the broke Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, soon to be Health Care. Dr. Hayhoe may reject ClimateGate on scientific front, but we cannot dismiss the impact of this scandal on a political front. When have you ever known a politician that has our best interest in mind?
Posted: December 11, 2009
Travis Mamone said:
Awesome interview! I'll definitely have to check that book out.
"The Naked Gospel" was awesome, btw!
Posted: December 11, 2009
Justin said:
Jonathan, your question, "a scandal arose when emails by well-known climate scientists, stolen from a British research lab, reportedly discussed manipulating data", is loaded. Much of the correspondence was taken out of context and cherry picked to look worse than it is, such as the 'tricks' and 'hiding' data; context specific jargon that does not mean lying or hiding up contrary evidence.
The problem with this issue is that it is being treated as a political topic; but this is not a typical political issue; the forces are intractable. There is no spinning the reality of 'climate change' the same way that politicians can spin a war, taxes, new social programs or scandals. So long as it is framed as a political issue, a lot of people who are inclined to believe that the truth is in the middle, shades of grey, never listen to one extreme or the other, etc. are going to apply that template to this issue and underestimate the certainty of the scientific community.
An angle that the interviewee did not take with respect to Christians is that admitting the human role in affecting our environment, our capacity to destroy it, is implicitly undermining the efficacy of God. I think that at some level that has something to do the tendency toward skepticism among conservative Christians along with the other items mentioned.
Finally, I personally have no doubt that there is not going to be a political resolution to this issue. The forces of money and power are too invested in the status quo and, in any event, we are likely over the cliff's edge already. Perhaps science has overestimated the repercussions of global warming and we will adapt to this world with relative ease save for a few hundred million in low lying places, or it will be catastrophic. Either way, the best use of resources is to plan for and figure out how to adapt to the coming reality instead of wasting time pushing against the largely immovable forces of wealth and power.
Posted: December 11, 2009
Keith Warren said:
I'm a "bible-totin" right wing christian and tend to jump on the stereotypical side on most issues. That said, I try to read with an open mind. Your interview with KH was very interesting.
Both your questions and her answers were well presented. Logic and intelligence were at work. But, there was no reference to God's Word...only your thought out question and her thought out answer.
Could it be that God really is in control and that He is allowing global-warming for His purpose? Is there light to be shed in the bible? Not specifically on global warming, but on the cause and effect of man's nature? Or, the effect of His Masterplan? Or, is the bible even an appropriate place to go when it comes to researching scientific issues?
Posted: December 18, 2009
Ted Slater said:
Dr. Hayhoe said, "Already, we’ve seen the first American refugees from climate change. Just this year, the inhabitants of Newtok, Alaska were forced to abandon their homes forever as warming temperatures caused the ground beneath them to flood, and melt away."
There's evidence, though, that the town was damaged not by "global warming" but by erosion caused by the NingLick River.
Folks often point to the ice melting off of M. Kilimanjaro as evidence of global warming. But that seems to be the result of deforestation instead.
I think it's good to evaluate these various anecdotes, to determine whether they support the theory of AGW or if other factors (erosion, deforestation, etc.) better explain what's happening. Too often those who affirm an AGW crisis see everything through a particular AGW-affirming lens; to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted: March 15, 2010