Famine in Malawi and Flatulating Kentucky Cattle

Conservative Christians really get a bum rap when it comes to certain social movements.  Some of it is fair – we can be quick to oppose anything “the world” tells us is true.  I read an article today which made me think.  The article, titled "The church in a land of climate change" was written by Jonathan Merritt – a young Christian culture thinker and writer.  Merritt works hard not to reject ideas just because they originated outside Christianity.  I like most of his writing.  Heck, I liked this article.  I just don’t agree with his core assumptions. 

Jonathan has advocated for evangelicals fighting climate change for a few years now.  His message resonates with many who accept man-made global warming as fact.  He strikes a chord with young Christians who do not wish to be lumped together with "ignorant Bible-thumpers".  Writing about his trip to Malawi, however, Merritt makes a fatal error in empirical reasoning:  he assumes that correlation implies causation.  It's understandable - it's what the environmental science crowd has been doing for some time.

Merritt looks at the plight of Malawi over the last few decades.  He presents a summary of thirty years of worsening climate data.  He relates local residents’ memories of bygone years when there was good rain to grow their crops.  Merritt offers moving anecdotes such as the following quote to make his appeal:

When Grace Kasowa, a Presbyterian farmer in Chagunda village was asked what message she has for American evangelicals, she told one of my fellow travelers, “You tell those Doubting Thomases that climate change is real and has a negative impact on people. Less rain means I can’t grow vegetables any more. Hungry elephants and other wild animals are coming into our village to rummage for our food and water.”  

Pillaging elephants - oh my!  We'd better close the coal plants today!  Frankly, I am unmoved by Grace Kasowa’s exhortations - at least in regard to climate change.  This isn't the first time emotions have been tapped to push an environmental agenda.  I remember the “gaping” ozone hole which every 80's school child feared would kill them.  We banned all kinds of things.  It was the end of aerosol deodorant - which I liked.  I guess I really shouldn’t complain - the first several years of my career were funded by the corporate response to laws eliminating ozone depleting substances.  

So what happened to the ozone hole?  When was the last time you heard it mentioned?  You haven’t heard anything because the ozone hole is gone.  You could argue that it disappeared because such decisive action was taken, but you would be wrong.  The ozone hole closed long before there was enough reduction in high ODP (ozone depleting potential) substances to have any impact.  There were far more factors in play than the computational models included.  Everyone was just plain wrong, and the time came to quietly shift environmental focus elsewhere. 

Where did the scientific attention turn?  To man-made global warming.  Concerns over global warming were growing as ozone hole hysteria peaked, but global warming was far, far less troubling then.  When the ozone hole closed, a cadre of global climate scientists needed a new focus for their narrow skills.  The resources shifted to studying man-made global-warming-induced climate change.  Remember the old saying: “To a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?  It was an apt descriptor here.

Is there any valid science behind global warming?  Sure there is!  We know that in a controlled atmosphere with controlled increases in GWP (global warming potential) compounds that atmospheric temperature will increase at a controlled and predictable rate.  The science is repeatable and undeniable.  The problem is that extrapolating these experiments to a system as complex as the earth is just as shaky as the ozone hole predictions.  No existing computational model has all the relevant factors.  When the earth's temperatures rise, climate scientists say “See, we told you!”  When the temperatures fall (like they have been doing), they say, “It means nothing, it's just natural change.”

Should we ignore potential man-made climate change?   Not at all!  We just need to exercise a little caution regarding our confidence in science this complicated.  That’s why I take environmental doomsday predictions with a grain of salt, that great scientist Al Gore notwithstanding.  That doesn’t, however, absolve us of our common sense to care for our planet.  As God’s stewards, Christians should be at the forefront of doing so.  In this regard, I highly commend Jonathan Merritt for his leadership.

In the end, I agree with Merritt’s conclusions if not his premises.  Christians need to help relieve the plight of those who are suffering from climate related issues.  Where I differ with Merritt is in the depth of his focus on climate change itself.  Let’s not waste unnecessary energy in areas we cannot significantly impact.  Let’s spend more time helping relieve suffering and bringing the hope of the Gospel.  I guess that’s the real rub between me and the “stop climate change now” crowd.  They believe if we stop cattle from flatulating on Kentucky hillsides, we will save Malawi some day.  I believe we can use that flatulating bovine to help feed Malawi now. 

  

**Note – Merritt nowhere in this article connects flatulating cattle to Malawi – I’m making my own correlations and extrapolations there.