This was a really helpful perspective for me. Obviously this is a topic that comes up in conversations quite often because of how much we try to do to reduce our “carbon footprint.” Well written, thanks.

Hi Tony,

Apologies for the longish post…

As a greenie with some experience of hanging out with greenies, there’s much I have to agree with here. With the collapse of Marxist or Socialist respectability as a cause, and and with a need for a “personal mission statement” to replace the great yawning chasm in which post-modern Australians often finds themselves, the green movement — especially global warming — has taken on almost “spiritual” significance.

However, I guess the one thing I have to disagree with is the suggestion that Global Warming is taking on a religious nature because of the passion with which scientists hold the “basic tenets”. 

The difference is that while some greenies might have a knee-jerk reaction out of “religious conviction”, the professional climatologist is tired of the same old invalid straw man argument being put forward by the sceptics. Yes science is inherently sceptical and asking questions and trying to move forward. The word is not “final”. But at the same time there is a peer-review process that will soundly spank silliness. This is why we don’t have peer reviewed papers suggesting the world is flat. Trying to do so by arguing that “science is not a democracy” and “my idea does not need a consensus” will fall on deaf ears when the paper is poppycock.

So while there is some debate about “how bad” global warming will be, it is wise to always check the credentials, the peer review status of a sceptic’s argument, and whether that argument has been seriously rebutted and debunked on a number of previous occasions. Because as the CBC’s “Denial Machine” documented, some of these sceptics have a “religious intensity” to their scepticism which is largely born of funding from Exxon.

There also comes a point where the science is overwhelming enough that us non-experts could actually be demonstrating arrogance or silliness of our own to attempt to deny it. As Andrew Cameron writes, “How sceptical is too sceptical?”

In that case, climate change becomes yet another of the many social responsibilities for us to consider as we carry on with our main task of sharing Jesus with a world that needs Him.

Now for a personal plea to readers. Please remember that many Aussies are losing hope in the face of climate fear. I’ve met many greenies in my own activism journey, and many seem to be sad hopeless people genuinely fearing for the lives of their children and grandchildren. They are often thinking or “spiritual” people, wanting to experience something deeper than the McDonalds McMovie McLife of the western world.

They are crying out for the gospel. I’ve been in rooms with politicians and activists discussing this stuff, and the conversation VERY quickly turns to questions of ultimate meaning. It would be great if there were better evangelists than myself placed in these “environments” (pardon the pun).

Cheers, great topic, and on a final final note, yes, you do have a gift for ordering the right amount of take away! (winks)

Tony, thanks for raising an important contemporary issue.

I recently gave a sermon on “Gaia” as part of a series at church on “Australian idols”. My conclusion: that once we stop treating the environment as a god through ritualistic/tokenistic practices to assuage our fear and guilt, we are liberated to take the major challenges facing our society more seriously out of love for neighbour. In other words, perhaps Gaia is an idol that actually functions minimise our care for God’s world through focusing on my guilt and fear. The cross and resurrection are the only truly good news for those trapped in fear and guilt. Loving God (partially) by loving our neighbour is the only true and living way. Only a community motivated by love (rather than fear or guilt) and upheld by resurrection hope can sustain a wise and vigorous response that does not grab hold of the first solution offered.

Brendan - do you think that the failure of a particular science to solve the deeper problems of life makes the pursuit of partial, temporary solutions (or improvements) futile? I for one am glad that oncology has been able to treat my cancer and prolong my life, even though I will still die at some point. I agree that the pursuit of the partial as though it were the whole is destructive idolatry, but isn’t there a good and important place for an environmental concern and activism that knows it is only part of life?

PS I’m with Dave regarding the possibility of a “sound spanking of silliness” that does not require a claim to be speaking a final word.

Couple of thoughts here…

1. Could the zealousness of climate change believers actually be born out of the seriousness of the problem rather than their needs for a religious cause? Certainly if we are in danger, I think it’s good that people with the know-how are thinking of solutions and bringing it all to our attention.

2. That environmentalism is a religion is not news. People have always replaced the creator with creation, that’s the very diffinition of idolatry. But I have noticed some right-leaning christians using this, along with the observation that there are a number of conflicting views, an an excuse to practically dismiss the issue all together. Just because ‘nobody’s word is final’ doesn’t mean ‘we can all be apathetic’.

3. If we view this issue as we do other forms of idolatry, as a good thing elevated beyond its position, then in and of itself envirnomentalism is still a good thing. The key question here is knowing the boundary between healthy and responsible involvement and enviro-worship.

4. For people who are not experts, the consensus of those who are needs to count for something. That’s why they are experts, to serve us with their specialist knowledge.

A key topic for our culture, keep the thoughts coming!

Thanks one and all for the fascinating and useful comments, and sorry for the slow response!

Yes, Martin, extreme danger would be a good reason for zealousness, and it might make one impatient of anyone questioning the danger. And yes, silliness can get the slapping down it deserves. But I don’t think that either of these caveats justifies or explains the silencing of serious objections or alternative views from other scientists (and I note, Dave L, that you went ad hominem on Dyson and not the MIT professor of atmospheric sciences!)

I wasn’t wanting to buy into any particular side of the argument, but to make some observations about how the argument was (or perhaps wasn’t) progressing.

Hi Byron
I am all for science, I think it is useful and helpful. The point i was trying to make (and i see that i didn’t phrase it eliquently but that presented it fuzzily) is that we put to strong an emphasis on science. It can cure some things but the deepest most important things it will never be able to cure, not permanently. Science can cure cancer but than something else will destroy us. Science can solve many problems but all the problems it solves are but temporary solutions. Actually a member of my family is a staunch evironmentalist. He wants to save the world but doesn’t realise that whilst saving the world from pollution is important this doesn’t bring a permanent solution. We live in a world that is so obseesed with the material and external that it has forgotten that the external is temporary. I am all for success within science and medicine provided it is not at the expense of knowing Jesus.