This
weekend, youth from 150 countries were so concerned about the global threat of
climate change that they left their classrooms and took to the streets to urge
world leaders to act. As a science educator,
I encouraged student involvement in learning.
So, I commend these students for their initiative, but I wonder if they
are knowledgeable enough to preach to adults, many of whom lack consensus on
whether or how much humans are responsible for climate change.
I am often asked, “Do you believe in ‘climate change?’” or, “Do you think humans
can stop climate change?” or, “What do you think about “climate change?”
The first two questions are easy. My answers
are, “Yes” and “No,” respectively. Yes, according
to science, climate change has been occurring for as far back as we have
records or can extrapolate. Geologic
evidence suggests quite a few sudden, major, catastrophic changes in both the
atmosphere and landscape of Earth—the kind of catastrophic events that can bury
and preserve animals and plants within rocks or polar ice. Because climate change has been occurring
since long before human impacts on the Earth were significant, it is doubtful
that we can stop climate change now. If
we could, what climatic conditions would we prefer for each latitude and biome? Would we eliminate deserts? Expand rain forests?
My answer to the third question, “I don’t always know what to think,” reflects
my attempt to approach scientific issues with humility and healthy
skepticism. Therefore, I want to use
this first of a series of articles on “Climate Change in Context” to emphasize
the importance of two virtues that seem necessary in our discussion of global
scale issues like climate change-- civility and humility. If we want to make any headway on climate
change or any other issue, there must be an “atmosphere” of civility and
humility.
We can easily fill the atmosphere of our discussions with “hot air” and
accomplish little else when we lack civility. Polite communication must underly
every discussion, and this means both listening and speaking politely with one
another. The Apostle James wrote, Everyone
should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry (James
1:19). Perfect advice, isn’t it? However, notice in the verses just before v.
19, James urges readers to humble themselves, recognize their proneness toward pride
and selfishness, and their need to seek wisdom that comes from a gracious God.
David Rupert’s article in Patheos entitled “What
the Bible Says about Civility” has numerous Scriptures encouraging civility
through a spirit of humility, kindness, and self-control. These are fruit of the indwelling Spirit of
God (Galatians 5: 22-23) which ought to enable Christ-followers to be examples
and to be winsome contributors to discussions of controversial issues (1 Peter
3: 15).
Rupert quotes Jim Brown, author of Ending our Uncivil War: A Path to
Political Recovery and Spiritual Renewal who said,
We’re in a Binary Age, where nuance is rare, complexity is verboten and
sharp political battle lines are drawn. Churchgoers on both sides of our
national mess are reluctant to turn a cheek, fine with abandoning the least of
our brothers or condemning anyone who is wealthy, and adamantly opposed to
loving their enemy. In fact, some want blood. They want Barabbas.
Those who purpose to engage in conversation, debate, and social media messaging
with civility and humility can create an atmosphere in which contention can give
way to understanding of one another’s differing motives and perspectives. Polite
humility is essential when discussing the nuances of complex scientific data
and differing interpretations. For
example, read the following pairs of “climate change claims” and consider how
you might participate in polite dialog in an effort to understand them:
Notice that neither claim denies that increased global temperatures have been measured.. But the two claims disagree as to which is
the cause and which is the effect. If increasing global CO2 is the result
and not the cause of changes in global temperatures, then climate science needs
to objectively tell us like it is lest our policy proposals miss the mark. As we will see later, Allan M.R. MacRae supports Scientific Claim #2 in “CO2,
Global Warming, Climate, and Energy.”
Humility among scientists and reviewers of research manuscripts is essential if
we are to avoid ethics violations. I
have written in “The
Conscience of Science” of the many incidents in which scientists reportedly
falsify data, suppress or hide contradictory results, or refuse to review
research that may favor an opposing claim. So, it is important that our electorate be
educated not only in the science of global ecology and climate science, but
that we learn to be discerning of the political motivations and forces that
take opposing sides in the debate about climate change.
First, are policies being grounded on the basis of “good
science” and correct conclusions about climate trends? Second, are proposed solutions properly
targeted to solve the environmental problem, or are they aimed instead at
simply justifying the concentration of more power in Washington, DC as part of
a social experiment?
Clearly, we can see that “climate change” has a context—one that demands of all
Americans our best efforts based on high moral and ethical standards of conduct
in both the sciences and in politics.
For this, I will suggest that we need fewer street marches and more
classrooms that teach at least the historical importance of the foundation
provided by our Judeo-Christian heritage.
In particular, a good atmosphere for dealing with climate change will demand
that we understand and apply the biblical narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 which we
will consider in Part 2. We can only
wonder sadly as how many of the estimated 4 million people who marched this
weekend for climate change have any knowledge or understanding of how important
Judeo-Christian ethics have been to the foundation of human civilization.
As I watched a Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg, likely not familiar with the
biblical narrative, spawn a global movement, I am reminded to exercise humility
and restraint lest I jump to conclusions about her qualifications to lead. In this regard, I conclude with another quote
from Jim Brown by David Rupert, as a prescription that may go far toward
improving the “atmosphere” of our classrooms, conference rooms, and even the street
marches for climate change:
The path to political recovery and spiritual renewal requires work. We can turn the cheek, but not be weak. We can lift up the least among us, as
uncorrupted religions teach, while we respect and improve our laws. We can love our enemies deeply – “agape,” as
the Greeks, Christ, and Dr. King encouraged.
But David Rupert wonders, “Are we too far gone?”
No comments:
Post a Comment