The Global Warming Issue: The National Association of Evangelicals Adopt a Do-Nothing Policy
In June 2004, the NAE leaders Ted Haggard and Richard Cizik signed the Sandy Cove Covenant, a declaration of intent for evangelical leaders to create a consensus statement concerning the dangers of human-induced climate change. But, immediately afterwards leaders such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Richard Roberts, President of Oral Roberts University, pressured the NAE not to take a position on global warming. In January 2006, Dobson, Roberts, and twenty other leaders signed a letter stating they believe that room should be left for “Bible-believing evangelicals to disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue” (Mieszkowski). Even before Dobson and Roberts signed the letter in January 2006, in March 2005, a statement issued by Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Vice President of Government and Public Policy, was posted on the Focus on the Family website declaring that they do not support the global warming issue, that the proponents of global warming “have attempted to manipulate the issue to stifle advances in numerous fields – advances that would benefit the lives of people the world over, including many of its poorest citizens,” and that “any issue that seems to put plants and animals above humans is one that we cannot support” (Minnery). The NAE represents an influence over thirty million members – a very significant influence.
The NAE derives their opinion – global warming is not a world-wide crises needing immediate attention – from evangelicals like E. Calvin Beisner, a long-time student of climatology and an associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary. Beisner holds the belief that “global warming that can be reasonably projected from the data we have will not be catastrophic or on balance more harmful than beneficial” (Bergin). He also postulates that moderate global warming “could lengthen farming seasons and help alleviate world hunger” (Bergin). The NAE’s silence on global warming also reflects Bush’s stated opinion. In a letter Bush addressed to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts after he refused to sign the Kyoto agreement in 2001, Bush voices his disinclination to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, fearing that such an act would increase the prices of energy and harm the consumer, particularly “given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change” (Office of the Press Secretary).
But the “incomplete” or controversial scientific knowledge that both Bush and the NAE rely on to stake their do-nothing position has been sufficiently debunked and replaced with general consensus that global warming is a human-made threat to future generations. Most scientists who disagree with the conclusions concerning global warming generally offer the same arguments. One particularly loud scientist – who even went so far as to say that “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention” – is Bob Carter, a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia (KevinR). Three of Carter’s most interesting arguments are that urban heat islands contaminate the earth’s surface temperature record, that the hockey stick is a faulty model, and that the views presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM) were inconclusive and inconsistent with the body of the panels initial report, and that the SPM did not provide suitable guidance for policy makers (Lambert, “Bob Carter”). Each of Carter’s arguments has been satisfactorily debunked.
What scientists refer to as an Urban Heat Island is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than other surrounding areas. As populations in cities grow, so do the cities’ average temperatures. This phenomenon is not to be confused with global warming and has been dubbed the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) (“Urban Heat Island Effect”). Urban heat islands mainly occur at night when cooling is reduced because the “view to space” is blocked by buildings. This effect is significantly reduced during windy conditions (William). An article found in RealClimate argues that there are several reasons to believe that the surface temperature record is “essentially uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the UHIE” (William). For starters, the record shows that global temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as they have on calm nights. If the UHIE significantly contributed to the data, then the temperature would be significantly reduced on windy nights, which is not the case. Secondly, in 2003 a study of the temperatures of urban areas using satellite-based night-light detection was published proving that the surface temperature has increased by about 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century with negligible UHI effects (William).
The term “Hockey Stick” was coined by Jerry Mahlman, former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. The term is used to describe the pattern of model-based estimates of the mean temperature change that has occurred in the Northern Hemisphere over the past millennium. The pattern includes a long cooling period from the “Medieval Warm Period” (mid-10th to 14th centuries) to the “Little Ice Age” (mid-15th to 19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming period during the 20th century. The climax in the pattern indicates unprecedented late 20th century warmth. It is the “Hockey Stick” model that Al Gore presents in his “slide show,” as depicted in the Guggenheim documentary.
Carter’s claim that the “Hockey Stick” is a faulty model refers to the false commonly held notion that there are errors in the study done by Mann et al. in 1998 and 1999 (the MBH98 reconstruction), which is the analysis primarily referred to. The most influential suggestion that the MBH98 reconstruction is flawed can be traced to articles written by McIntyre and McKitrick that were published in Energy and Environment, a social science journal, and then later in an article titled “Communications Arising” which was rejected by Nature, but then published on the internet (Mike, “Myth vs. Fact”). In their articles McIntyre and McKitrick argue that the Mann et al. reconstruction is flawed because the construction of the shape centers around their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) data, around the infilling of four annual values missing from one tree series in 1400 AD to 1403 AD, and around the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980 (Mike, “False Claims”). Mann et al. sufficiently defend their reconstruction by arguing that their reconstruction was strengthened by eliminating any data that were infilled in the original analysis and that their analysis does not rest on any proxy data represented by the PCA (Mike, “Myth vs. Fact”). Mann et al. also demonstrate that the McIntyre and McKitrick correction to the Mann et al. model – which contrary to all other known reconstructions – argues that there was unprecedented warming in the 15th century, was actually produced by McIntyre and McKitrick censoring key proxy data in the original Mann et al. (1998) dataset (Mike, “Myth vs. Fact”). In addition, Mann et al. argue that the McIntyre and McKitrick correction “fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature” (Mike, “Myth vs. Fact”).
But Carter’s opposing statement that the IPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers” is inconsistent with the body of the rest of IPCC’s report, reflects the most important false notion of all, because it is this false notion that influences the NAE and influenced the Kyoto decision. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “was established in 1988 by two United Nations (UN) organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)” (“Intergovernmental Panel,” Wikipedia). Its purpose is “to assess the dangers of ‘human-induced climate change'” (“Intergovernmental Panel,” Wikipedia). In 2001, the IPCC wrote the “Summary for Policymakers,” a summary of their reports that was intended to help government officials decide how to take action (“Summary for policymakers,” Wikipedia). Carter’s argument – the”Summary for Policymakers” is inconsistent with the IPCC reports – reflects a false report on the SPM, written by an author from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In 2001, the NAS was asked to study the IPCC reports and identify the greatest areas of certainties and uncertainties in climate-change science. They were also asked to identify any differences found between the IPCC reports and the “Summary for Policymakers.” In 2004, Richard S. Lindzen, an author of the NAS report on the SPM, published an editorial in The Hill Times, Canada’s independent government newspaper, which blatantly contradicted the NAS report that he co-authored (Lambert, “‘Sound Science'” see also Lindzen). In this editorial, Lindzen claims that the “SPM, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, and is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world’s foremost climate scientists,” is in actuality not a consensus at all (Lambert, “‘Sound Science'”). This statement blatantly contradicts Section 7 of the actual NAS report, which actually states that “after analysis, the [NAS] committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report.” Lindzen also claims that the panel’s primary conclusion was that “despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled” (Lambert, “‘Sound Science'”). Actually, the panel’s primary conclusion is laid out in the beginning of their report and says:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (Lambert, “‘Sound Science'”)
Lindzen’s editorial further misrepresents the science summarized by the NAS report, providing incredibly influential food for global warming and Kyoto skeptics, by claiming that the IPCC reports noted that a twenty-year period of evaluation is too short for estimating long-term effects of greenhouse-gas accumulation due to human activity, making it seem as if the IPCC only used twenty years worth of data to determine the long-term trends. This is a significant misrepresentation of the science because the twenty-year period of evaluation does not refer to all of the data for earth-surface air temperatures, which spans at least one hundred years; it refers to the twenty years of satellite data beginning at 1979. The IPCC made note of the fact that while there has been significant earth surface warming during the past few decades, the satellite data shows that there has been relatively little warming in the air temperature of the earth’s troposphere; the IPCC then makes the cautionary note that twenty years is too short a period to draw conclusions about the long-term behavior of the climate system, including the troposphere. Here is the passage from the IPCC report:
Although warming at Earth’s surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system. (Lambert, “‘Sound Science'”)
Global warming skeptics like to twist this whole passage to claim that the satellite data shows that there has not been any warming during the past twenty years. The passage clearly states that there has been pronounced earth-surface warming over the past few decades, but that we don’t have enough data to draw conclusions about the long-term temperature behavior of the troposphere. Lindzen twists the science even further by pretending that the NAS reported that the IPCC stated that there is not enough data to determine whether or not the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases causes global warming. Again, this is a blatant contradiction of the NAS report, which clearly states that there is consensus that human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases is a significant contributor towards global warming.
It may also be of further interest to note that the IPCC’s working group is co-chaired by a very dedicated evangelical, Sir John Houghton, professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Meteorological Office, and founder of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Houghton was the lead editor of the first three IPCC reports (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia). In 2003 Houghton wrote that he “has no hesitation in describing [global warming] as a weapon of mass destruction” (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia). Houghton also defends the IPCC process, particularly against charges that the IPCC fails to consider non-CO2 explanations for climate change. In 2000 he also accused the American coal and oil lobbyists of “trying very hard to weaken, or to change, or to alter, scientific conclusions” (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia). He also agreed with the statement that “most of the scientific objection to the consensus is actually from vested interests within the oil/coal lobby, rather than from scientists” (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia). When asked if green groups such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth are responsible for the objections against the science promoted by the oil and coal lobbyists, he replied that it varies “from one green group to another, but some of the green groups are really very responsible. They do tend to emphasise, of course, the larger effects” and “some green groups have produced documents which are really exaggerations” (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia). Arguing from his Christian perspective in the Winstanley Lecture Theatre, Trinity College, Cambridge, he said that the problem of climate change “is a problem that is well downstream; many of us will not be much affected ourselves but it is going to affect our children and our grandchildren… It is our children and our grandchildren who will experience the impacts of climate change” and that:
Christians and other religious people believe that we’ve been put on the earth to look after it. Creation is not just important to us, we believe also it is important to God and that the rest of creation has an importance of its own… we are destroying forests, important forests. When I say “we” I mean “we” the human race of which we are part. We are party to the destruction, we allow it to happen, in fact it helps to make us richer. We really need to take our responsibility as ‘gardeners’ more seriously. (“John T. Houghton,” Wikipedia)
In conclusion, the National Association of Evangelicals has a more scientifically credible evangelical to learn from and be persuaded by then E. Calvin Beisner, an associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary. But, the NAE rather chooses to side with Bush and be persuaded by the fraudulent, misrepresented science presented by McIntyre, McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen, not to mention all of the misrepresentations presented by coal and oil lobbyists. So, based on misrepresented science, the NAE chooses to operate a do-nothing policy and not to adopt a policy that “puts plants and animals above humans” when presented with a science proving that such a policy endangers future humanity. Like sheep they decide to follow a sheep named Bush who sides with coal and oil lobbyists, and who, it should be noted, has a very substantial personal interest in the oil industry. Why is this significant? Because the NAE has influence over thirty million members and that doesn’t include the sheep that the members of the NAE shepherd. Hmm, that’s all very interestingâÂ?¦.
