US Creationists And Climate Change Denialism

What’s With Them Rednecks ?

It is occasionally noted during discussions of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that Creationists are a stronghold of AGW Denialism. For example, The Guardian (UK) ran an article in April 2009 entitled “Just What Is It With Evangelical Christians And Global Warming” citing a survey from the Pew Forum On Religion and Public Life which showed only 34% of US White Evangelical Christians accept the AGW hypothesis.

Here is an extract from the Pell survey of 1,502 Americans, which has a sampling error of plus/minus 3%

Percentage of Americans who believe in AGW:

Total Sample: Yes 47% No 45% Don’t Know 8%
Non-Religious: Yes 58% No 35% Don’t Know 7%
White Mainline Protestants: Yes 48% No 44% Don’t Know 8%
White Evangelicals: Yes 34% No 55% Don’t Know 11%

What Is The Correlative Factor ?

Given that Pew found that the rate of acceptance of AGW amongst the Evangelicals was significantly lower than that of the general population and in view of the fact that Creationists would be more strongly respresented in this group than the others, it is fair to assume that the correlation between Creationism and anti-AGW exists. This being the case, what is the correlative factor ? What is it about US Creationists that predisposes them to reject AGW ?

The Wall Street Journal of Sept. 28, 2007 ran an interesting article, “Split Over Global Warming Widens Among Evangelicals”. In this article the views of pro- and anti-AGW Evangelicals are canvassed and the following anti-AGW viewpoints/rationales given:

- Senior US Evangelicals believe that AGW distracts clergy/believers from their core responsibility to elucidate Jesus’ message. A similar argument has been advanced by Cardinal Pell of the Catholic Church in Australia.
- Theological reasons advanced against AGE by certain Evangelicals.
- White Evangelicals are overwhelmingly Republicans hence toe party line.
- Conservative inertia. Southern Baptist Convention cites Climate Change not settled among scientists. 50 years ago refused to acknowledge Racism as an issue.

In my opinion the correlative factor between Creationists and anti-AGW is that of political allegiance to the Republican Party, the third factor cited in the Wall St. Journal article.

Creationist and Republican

The Religious Right is a constituency of the Republican Party. In the 2008 US General Election 73% of Evangelicals voted Republican according to the Pew Research Centre in this article, Voting Religiously

Republicans, Republican Pastors and AGW

The Republican Party is haven and wellspring for anti-AGW ideology.
Environment Magazine in Sept/Oct 2008 carried an article entitled “A Widening Gap: Democratic and Republican Views On Climate Change”. In data, data sourced from Gallup Polls showed that only 40% of Republicans subscribed to AGW compared to 72% of Democrats.

In a similar vein, Pew Research Centre in Oct. 2009 found that belief amongst AGW is very low amongst Republicans. In April 2008, Pew found only 27% of Republicans subscribe to AGW, dropping to 18% in Oct. 2009. The comparitive figures for Democrats were 58% and 50%.

Despite the disparity between the Gallup and Pew figures, both polls make clear that Republicans are far less likely to subscribe to AGW than Democrats.

To summarize the Pew Data:
27% of Republicans believed in AGW as of April 2008
18% of Republicans believed in AGW as of October 2009
34% of Evangelicals (mostly Creationists) believed in AGW as of April 2009.
73% of Evangelicals vote Republican.

In general terms then: Creationist correlates to Republican correlates to anti-AGW.

Some hard data which supports the above correlative chain comes from Lifeway Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. They polled 1,002 pastors and found that the more conservative their political beliefs, the more likely they were to reject AGW. The research appears in their article LifeWay Research studies global warming beliefs among Protestant pastors

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively

Disseminating Republican AGW Denialism To Creationists

The Religious Right (RR) has a very effective network of radio and television stations through which it can disseminate its opinions to members and sympathizers. These TV and Radio networks are controlled by the older members of the RR who are more conservative and more pro-Republican than the younger members.

AGW represents a massive challenge to the economies of the West, addicted as they are to chronic over-consumption. For the Republican Party, with its array of prominent financiers and backers from Big Oil, AGW represents a second and even more immediately serious challenge which is how to maintain the legitimacy of unlimited Oil Production and Consumption. AGW represents a threat to the power, money, authority and thus the very survival of the Republican Party. These challenges can only be met by de-legitimizing AGW.

Fissures In The Religious Right Over AGW

From the Pew figures it can be seen that Evangelicals, and hence Creationists, are less likely to reject AGW than the average Republican. (34% vs. 22% approx.)

During the 2008 US Federal Election campaign, fissures in the Religious Right began to appear as younger members began to assert their agreement with the AGW hypothesis and pressure Evangelical organisations to adopt AGW platforms and practices.

The younger Creationists turned to the Biblical concept of ’stewardship’, a centuries old cross-denominational position on mankind’s relationship to the environment to support their notion of ‘Creation Care’ and argue for an AGW-friendly agenda in the RR media and secretariat.

For Senior Evangelics acceptance of AGW represented a second-order heresy of ‘turning Democrat’ the party not only of Al Gore, whose entire political career was predicated around the environment and Climate Change, but also associated in their minds with Gay Rights and Abortion.

Those that control the RR, with their established links to Republican politicians and centres of influence use theri position and control of RR resources to broadcast their anti-AGW opinions at the expense of pro-AGW opinions to the Evangelical rank-and-file.

The Contempt Of The Left For The Bible And Christianity

It is sometimes posited by left-leaning journalists and bloggers that the Creationists are anti-AGW for theological reasons: that Creationists believe the Bible teaches anti-AGW, or that Creationists are simply anti- or non-scientific because the Bible, itself putatively an anti-scientific document is the arbiter of truth for them.

Such leftists group Creationism and anti-AGW as equally non-scientific beliefs. Creationists are held to be innocently or defiantly ignorant of good science. A contempt for Creationists is apparent among many leftists, prominent in this contempt being the general refusal of Creationists to accept the Theory Of Evolution as incontrovertible fact. This contemptuous tone is very evident in the Guardian article cited above.

The contempt of leftists for Creationists leads them to attempt to locate the reasons for Creationist anti-AGW sentiment in the Bible, a document leftists love to mock as being non-scientific, not least because it is the source for the Creationist position.

The desire of leftists to mock and ridicule the Bible thus causes them to overlook the most obvious reason for US Creationists being anti-AGW. They are Republicans.

Theological ‘Proofs’ For Anti-AGW

To be fair to leftists, it is absolutely true that theological ‘proofs’ are used by certain prominent Creationists to argue against AGW.

But the quality of these ‘proofs’ is very poor, suggesting that theological argument is being coerced from the Scripture by certain Creationsists in order to to buttress a political (anti-AGW) position, rather than being derived inductively from Scripture. These Creationists are trying to force the Bible to say something that it really doesn’t say.

In short, anti-AGW interperetations are being retro-fitted onto Scripture by those with motive to coerce such interperetations from the Bible.

A theological ‘proof’ for anti-AGW is very palatable to the senior RR movers and shakers as it allows them to reconcile their Political and Theological ideologies into a coherent whole and stave off leadership and/or policy challenges from younger members.

Consequently, senior RR members allow such ‘proofs’ airtime or print space and leftists gleefully pounce on these theologically impoverished proofs to support their own bias, that the Bible is anti-Scientific and to give them further excuse to ridicule Scripture and Christians (not that they generally need much encouagement).

But again, to be fair, most leftists do not have sufficient Biblical literacy to properly evaluate theological argument.

Theology and Anti-AGW

The concept of Dominion as expressed by certain Creationists to theologically disprove AGW relies on a highly innovative understanding of Dominion. It is in fact so ‘innovative’ that I suspect that it has been invented expressly to cover the proponents real objections to AGW which I would say is that it challenges the rapacious corporate-government ‘free market’ paradigm beloved of the Republican Party.

The US Evangelical organisation Cornwall Alliance, a faith-based ant-AGW advocacy group, strongly infer that the Dominion of Humankind over Earth means that Humans can only ever be an agent for improvement in the natural environment and never an agent of destruction.

Cornwall, quoted in the Guardian article say:

Many people mistakenly view humans as principally consumers and polluters rather than producers and stewards. Consequently, they ignore our potential, as bearers of God’s image, to add to the earth’s abundance… Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth… While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated… Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

The concept that humans can only ever exercise a positive effect on the natural environment is not taught in scripture. What is taught is that it is God’s mandate and gift to humanity that we, of all creatures, have the primary responsibility for the care of the planet and the most capacity to enjoy its beauty and wonder, as it was prepared very much for mankind’s enjoyment, but not solely for that purpose, as other scriipture goes on to tell us.

Other creationists teach, as did for example John Shimkus, a Republican House Of Representatives member testifying before the US House SubCommitte On Energy And The Environment in March 2009, that since God is sovereign, only He can destroy the planet, not humanity, thus AGW cannot be real.

Shimkus also ingeniously posited that AGW cannot be real because it would cause a second Noah’s Flood, which God said He would not do. This ignores the fact that God is not causing AGW (note that ‘A’).

Theologically Agnostic To Climate

Finally on climate and theology, it has been sometimes posited that Evangelicals are anti-mitigationist because they believe in The Rapture (thus it doesn’t matter what happens to the climate) or because they are looking forward to the destruction of the planet beause that’s when Jesus will return.

It is plain that the first belief should not be correlated to anti-AGW as it renders the entire debate moot, while the second could easily lead to a pro-AGW position because it makes Jesus’ return more likely to be sooner.

To Summarize

Creationism correlates to an anti-AGW belief because Creationists are Republicans.

Creationists are less likely than most Republicans to be anti-AGW because traditional Christian concepts of stewardship undermine the Republican position that humans are not responsible for Climate Change.

Theological arguments in support of anti-AGW exist but are theologically impoverished. Their role is to reconcile the political beliefs of Republicans with the Bible, but do not successfully do so.

Al Gore Is Not A Hypocrite

Are You Eating Your Fox News ?

My Dad, mindful of my political health, wanted me to check on some things about Climate Change that Al Gore said. Specifically, that a British Court had ruled that Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was incorrect in eight of nine specific assertions and that Al Gore was a personal hypocrite on Carbon usage. In this way, Dad hoped to cleanse me of wrong-thinking on Climate.

He’s Wrong But Right

Here’s an article I found in ‘The Times’ of London Internet Edition which talks about a court case in which a British judge was asked to rule on whether Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was ‘scientific’ and could be shown to school-children.

The judge found that:

1) What Al Gore said was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of Climate Change.

In other words the judge agreed that Climate Change occurs through man-generated Carbon pollution (car exhaust, coal-fired Power Stations etc.)

2) But the judge also said that some of Gore’s claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

So, according to the judge, Al Gore is basically correct and anthropegenic Climate Change is real, though some of his specific claims were exaggerated. That means that the British judgement supports the climate change thesis in direct opposition to how my Dad heard the story which is that the British judgement contradicts the Climate Change thesis.

People Who Live In 20 Room Mansions Shouldn’t Fly Around In Private Jets

Dad also wanted me to look into claims that Al Gore was a hypocrite because he wantonly consumes Carbon as Boy George and Ultravox once consumed eyeliner.

I found that there is no evidence that Gore is a hypocrite in regard to his personal Carbon usage. Here’s an article that I found summarized below:

Al Gore’s home is a huge mansion. It used to use 12 times more energy than the average home in Nashville, where the Gore’s live, but it used no more energy than other houses of similar size in the same area.

However, the Gores purchase Carbon Offsets, i.e. pay people to plant trees to consume CO2. By doing this, the Gores’ nett carbon footprint is zero.

Since 2007, the Gores have remodelled their home, installing solar panels, rainwater tanks, geothermal heating and energy efficient light globes. They also pay a premium on the energy bill ($432 per month) to source some of their electrical power from renewable energy. This would equate to about one-sixth of their electricity bill if this bloke’s calculations can be believed.

Another specific claim is that Gore recklessly guzzles Carbon by flying around the world in a private jet (perhaps simultaneously bathing in a spa of bubbling petrochemicals and quaffing raw Diesel from Crystal Bowls).

First, Gore does not own a Private Jet. He flies on regular commercial flights most of the time. However, he is a former US Vice-President and thus receives occasional death threats. On these occasion, or when his schedule is so tight as to demand it, he flies in a private charter jet and for these flights purchases carbon offests.

Finally Dad claimed that Gore always leaves all the lights in his house on. The only thing I could find about this was that he did not turn ALL his mansion lights off during Earth Hour one year. OK he probably should have, but this is nitpicking. He did turn off his major lights. And at least he purchases Carbon Offsets.

Overall, given the above I would say Al Gore is not a hypocrite. If everyone did what the Gores did our homes would be more energy efficient, More use would be made of renewable energy and there would be more forests and trees due to extensive purchase of Carbon Offsets.

Yet Again

So once again, data bought to my attention by a Climate Change sceptic actually supports the climate change thesis.

The Power Of A Good Lie

I think the smears against Gore, guilelessly repeated by my Dad, are a good example of the power of propaganda. A few omissions here, a few Chinese Whispers there and by the time middle-class Australia hears about it, Al Gore is transformed from Patron Saint Of Climate Change into to pint-size planetary disaster, a kind of Godzilla-sized sentient chimney belching CO2 from behind the controls of a personal coal-fired 747. In short, a scarlet hypocrite, who must therefore have his own secret agenda for personal aggrandisement, power, money and/or fame.

Probably Gore did choose the ultra-worst case doomsday scenarios to deliberately alarm us into thinking about Climate Change. In doing so he has provided fodder for his enemies, but the additional and unrelenting smear campaign directed against him shows that someone, somewhere has a lot to lose by acknowledging, as the British Judge did, that anthropogenic Climate Change is real.

Gonoinemus Vertens Speaks His Mind

Gonoinemus Vertens Speaks His Mind

Viewers watching tonight’s Q&A “Green And Everything In Betwen“, 30-APR-2009 on the ABC would have seen Barnaby Joyce’s head inflate to Zeppelin-like proportions and become irridescent red as the propulsion mechanism of some deep-ocean jellyfish
<

as he fulminated on the ‘quasi-religious’ climate change cultists, their threat to the employment of Illawarra coal-miners and the latest ’science’ that proves the climate change hypothesis ‘far from settled’.

The science that is stoking Barnaby’s fires is this recent article in Geophysical Research Letters 36 (April 2009) by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey summarized here: Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked to the Ozone Hole and then mispresented by The Australian on April 18 “Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking” directly triggering Barney’s regurgitation reflex after over-stimulating his outrage gland.

What’s The Fuss ?

The British Antarctic Survey has recently concluded that the ice sheet over Eastern Antarctica has increased significantly over the past 30 years due to changed weather conditions created by the Ozone Hole. This has offset ice losses in Western Antarctica, home of the famous ex-Larsen Ice Shelf and now destabilised Wilkins Ice Shelf such that:

the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% per decade since the late 1970s.

This has been independently verified by Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison quoted in The Australian article:

Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,”

The Australian gleefully concluded:

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

…and so The Australian once again does its readers (but not its constituency) a disservice by misrepresenting pro-Climate Change science as supporting the denialist or skeptical hypothesis so beloved by Baranaby Joyce, the National Party and fellow travellers.

What The Australian Should Have Told You

The British Antarctic Survey are IN AGREEMENT, not contra the Climate Change hypothesis. Their research in GRL 36 said bluntly that

1) Anthropogenic Greenhouse gases are causing serious ice loss in the Arctic;
2) Anthropogenic Greenhouse gases are also causing serious ice loss in the Antarctic;
3) Human activity of a different kind (use of CFCs) is mitigating ice loss in the Antarctic; but
4) As the Ozone layer heals we can expect the Antarctic to lose one-third of its ice cover by 2100.

Lead Author, Professor John Turner of BAS in his own words:

“Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth.

While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice.

Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.”

How Not To Be A Newspaper

The Australian is thus caught with its pants down misrepresenting Climate Change science. It is not interested in fairly representing the climate debate and finds a willing echo chamber in those with vested interests to defend, such as Barnaby Joyce and Cardinal George Pell.

If it had a conscience it would blush as deeply as Gonoinemus.

Making Pen Pals In The Vatican

I sent the following email to Cardinal Pell via his office at the Catholic Archdiocese Of Sydney. If Mr. Pell should reply and gives permission, I’ll blog it here. His work email address is: chancery@ado.syd.catholic.org.au

Dear Mr. Pell,

In discussions with my family, who are not Catholic, your rejection of the Climate Change thesis convinces them that the Climate Change position is weak. They say ‘Pell knows many scientists who are afraid to speak out against Climate Change’. They consider you to be honest and fair. I would guess that many other pretty normal and not necessarily Catholic middle-class households also consider you to be credible on Climate Change and have a lot of respect for your Moral and Intellectual authority.

I decided to research your statements on Climate Change and came to the following conclusions:

1) You consider Climate and Ecology a second-order issue behind matters of Faith and Mission
2) You consider the Climate Change camp dangerously compromised by neo-Pagan influences
3) You consistently but not intentionally misuse Climate data in service of first-order issues of Faith and Mission
4) You are not impartial on the Climate Change debate but biased because of points 2) and 1)
5) You have been consistently incorrect in your use of Climate data.
6) You do not understand or try to understand the foundational arguments of the Climate Change proponents

I have written a Blog article expanding on these points which you can read here

I would be very interested in your response to this article.

If you should have time and inclination to read this article may I have permission to use your reply on my blog ?

Best Regards,

Baraholka

Cardinal Pell: Australia’s Climate Change Lyre Bird

Pell’s Moral and Intellectual Authority

Cardinal Pell occupies a strategic position in the Climate Change debate in Australia. He is sometimes cited (e.g here and here, and Greg Sheridan here) by the ‘Denialist’ side as an intelligent, impartial skeptic, but as a very senior clergyman, he is assumed by many ordinary Australians to be impartial and honest and consequently becomes an authority on Climate to them also.

In discussions with my family, who are not Catholic, Pell’s rejection of the Climate Change thesis convinces them that the Climate Change position is weak. They say ‘Pell knows many scientists who are afraid to speak out against Climate Change’. They consider him to be honest and fair. I would guess that many other pretty normal and not necessarily Catholic middle-class households also consider Pell to be credible on Climate Change.

The Source Of Pell’s Bias On Climate

In my opinion Pell is not impartial on Climate Change. He has a bias toward rejecting the Climate Change hypothesis as a result of his theological positions on Ecology, Population and Faith. This bias is evident in his rhetoric which displays a reactionary slant not compatible with an ‘open’ position on the subject.

For example, in a Sunday Telegraph column in Feb 2007 entited ‘Scaremonger’, he described the Climate Change case as ‘propaganda’ containing (but not limited to) ‘a lot of nonsense’ and ‘mild hysteria’ which is ‘dangerously close to superstition’ pushed by (but not limited to) ’scaremongers’ and ’some zealots’.

To my knowledge Pell never describes the Climate Change Skeptical case in these terms.

Pell’s reading on Climate Change is selective. He quotes various data from Skeptic sources, but does not cross-check the assertions against Proponent sources. As far as I am aware Pell has never retracted an assertion of his later shown to be incorrect. This indicates he is not interested in ‘further evidence’ as he claims.

Pell Gets It Wrong

In ‘Scaremonger’ Pell said:

The East Anglia university climate research unit found that global temperatures did not increase between 1998 – 2005.

Pell is apparently unaware that Client Change Proponents know that there are large natural short-term variations in Global Temperature. The cooler temparatures of 1998-2005 will probably become even cooler due to a La Nina event commencing in 2007. Pell knows that the long-term trend is the important indicator but then uses short-term data to bolster his own case while tarring Climate Change Proponents as harbouring those who use short-term data to magnify their case.

Scaremongers have used temperature fluctuations in limited periods and places to misrepresent longer patterns.

Pell quotes spatial variations in temperature to support the Skeptic case but is unaware that the pattern of spatial variation matches the Climate Change Proponent modelling.

Pell knows that CO2 levels rise during inter-glaciation periods but does not know that this is a different CO2 phenonemon than anthropogenic C02 which causes warming for reasons unrelated to natural global temperature cycles.

Pell notes that NASA has reported that the temperature on Mars has risen by 0.5C, uses this to refute the Proponent claim but is not aware that scientific opinion does NOT ascribe the increase in Martian temperature to an increase in Sunspot or other solar activity, which would be the only way that Mars and Earth could suffer Climate Change from the same source.

In fact, the Sun’s energy output has remained stable since 1978 and the most commonly suggested reason for the Martian temperature increase is a dust-blanket forming in its atmosphere due to prolonged violent winds.

Pell mentioned the Kangerlussuaq glacier in Greenland in an official statement as Archbishop Of Sydney in October 2007, saying that it ‘is not shrinking but growing in size’.

Pell’s source knew but did not say that:

1) Kangerlussuaq has had massive ice-loss from 2000-2006;
2) 2006 showed a seasonal variation with parts of the glacier thickening but with an overall slight loss of ice mass.
3) The pattern of ice-loss is consistent with global warming.
4) The article warns of the possibility of major long-term melting of Greenland’s ice mass.

Pell was deceived by his source, Bjorn Lomborg, who intentionally misrepresented the facts, cherry-picking an article without being faithful to the article’s conclusions, actually reversing them.

I am not aware of Pell denouncing Lomborg as a hysterical, propogandist zealot, as being in the grip of a pagan worship of money or power or peddling nonsense and superstition. These terms Pell reserves for Climate Change Proponents, indicating his lack of objectivity.

Pell’s assertion that Greenland was warmer in the 1940’s than it is today is true, but once again ignores long-term trends. Pell has pulled one period from a century of data and made THAT period normative. Considering the period 1915-1965 as a whole, Greenland is 2 degrees Celcius warmer over the past decade.

On Antarctic temperatures, in ‘Scaremongers’ Pell said that ‘the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there’ but did not say or did not know that:

1) His reporter considerd only the two decades from 1978 but the primary source discussed a 40 year series showing Antarctica getting slightly warmer on average;
2) Climate models predict a lesser Climate Change effect in the Southern Hemisphere, and less the further South you go.
3) Antarctic wind currents and ocean dynamics mitigate local warming
4) Warming is unambiguous on the Antarctic coast
5) Only in the interior was cooling supposedly present.
6) In Jan-March 2002 the Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick disintegrated, meaning an ice shelf covering an area comparable in size to the state of Rhode Island disappeared in a single season.

In short, on Antarctica, Pell was selective to the point of myopia. Really, he doesn’t want to know and if Pell is serious about being open to further evidence he will be interested in this report Antarctica ‘melting faster than first thought’
summarizing an article in Nature magazine regarding latest Australian research in Antarctica.

Pell The Climate Change Lyre Bird

So, taking Pell point by point on Climate, he is wrong every time. Far from assembling a cohesive intellectual case against Climate Change Pell has merely accumulated a melange of factoids disconnected from any integrated understanding of the issue.

What is interesting about Pell is that every time he is interviewed on Climate he throws out different nuggets of Climate data indicating he is constantly gathering denialist material, much as a Lyre Bird might collect any bright and shiny piece of junk it finds in the scrub, just because it thinks its attractive.

The Lyre Bird, like Pell, has no interest in connecting the junk materials together or understanding what they really are or constructing something useful out of them, it just stuffs them into his nest which is the structure it is really interested in attending to.

Pell’s ‘nest’ is Catholic theological positions on Ecology, Population and Faith. These are the larger and more important structures that Pell is really interested in defending. Climate Change is only salient for Pell as it intersects his true areas of concern. Pell is quite happy to misuse Climate Change data in order to bolster his theological perspectives and faith mission.

The fact that Pell has a consistently replenishing source of denialist literature indicates he is reading some denialist websites or magazines. It would be interesting to trace the pattern and timing of Pell’s assertions on Climate to see where he is getting his material from. Any takers ?

Pell On Paganism and Climate

Pell’s real concern about Climate Change is that it is a modern expression of Paganism, a quasi-religious belief based on dialectical fear and worship of the natural world, not whether or not Climate Change is real.

In this article in The Catholic World Report, January 2008, Pell ‘indicated his disappointment’ with the way Australians ‘have embraced even the wilder claims about man-made climate change as if they constituted a new religion.’

some of the more hysterical and extreme claims about global warming appear symptomatic of a pagan emptiness, of a Western fear when confronted with the immense and uncontrollable forces of nature … In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions!’

Climate Change Diverts Clergy From Their Proper Calling

Pell also believe that as Christian clergy succumb to what he describes as the ‘green fundamentalist faith’, this will reduce their effectiveness at proclaiming the Gospel of saving faith in Jesus, which is the core business of Jesus’ church.

Pell said:

Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralizing their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear. They don’t need church leaders to help them with this, although it is a very effective way of further muting Christian witness

and

Jesus Christ didn’t say anything on global warming

so therefore, generally-speaking, neither should His ministers or disciples. Climate Change and Ecology should be issues of lesser importance to Christians.

Pell does not say that environmental issues are irrelevant for Christians – he is in favour of developing ‘clean’ (CO2 emission-free) power – but that environmental issues are second-order issues such as proclaiming faith in Jesus

There are many measures that are good for the environment that we should pursue… [but] I strive to argue rationally towards God the Creator, and reject substitutes

and inter-personal social issues such as marriage breakdown and abortion

It’s much less important than the faith of the five or ten or fifteen per cent of the poorest Australians; it’s much less important than the problem of marriage breakdown, it’s much less important than the problem of abortion.

Pell On Climate Change And Population

Pell strongly criticized the Medical Journal Of Australia for publishing a letter from Obstetrician Dr. Barry Walters, who proposed an annual Carbon tax on families with more than two children.

As the blog Cafe Theology reported, Pell, speaking in Seoul, where he was awarded the Mysterium Vitae Grand Prix award for his outstanding efforts for the pro-life movement, said

this is a striking illustration of where a minority neo-pagan, anti-human mentality, wants to take us

The connection from Pell’s views on Climate Change and Paganism to those of fertility are explicit, indicating Pell’s approach to Climate is integrated at the Theological rather than the Ecological level and it is the Theological level which forms the basis and context for his thinking about Climate, not the supposed ‘evidence’ from Skeptical sources which Pell adduces in a haphazard, opportunistic manner.

Pell explicitly rejects any connection between population and climate change. In a statement made during Catholic World Youth Day in July 2008 he said:

I’m a bit of a sceptic about the claim that human activity is likely to produce a man-made catastrophe. I’m well aware that over the years, there have been great changes in the climate.

The accommodation between this statement and the Catholic position on fertility is obvious.

Summarizing Pell On Climate

Pell rejects Climate Change because, for him, it interferes with the issues with are truly important: proclaiming the gospel, protecting society from false or empty religion and obedience to Catholic teaching on fertility.

He has collected a melange of disconnected factiods on Climate from Denialist sources which he spinkles into the public debate as an innoculation against the competing pagan faith of Climate Change. He does not attempt to integrate his melange into a cohesive explanation of Climate Change, being content to opportunistically misuse Climate data in the service of faith issues he feels are truly important.

Yet Pell presents himself as an open-minded inquirer who has carefully studied the issue of Climate Change while portraying Climate Change proponents as fear-mongering propogandists. He loosely associates himself with scientists as a means of cultivating the appearance of objectivity. These scientists are always Denialists.

He never corrects himself on Climate and makes no real effort to understand the arguments of Climate Change Proponents. He never contradicts specific denialist assertions, limiting himself to a vague statement that industrial activity must have some mild but insignificant effect on climate. This ‘concession’, while sincerely believed, is also projected to cultivate the appearance of objectivity.

I suspect Pell may be self-deluded. He may genuinely believe he has considered the evidence for Climate Change, but like all self-delusions, it falls to pieces as soon as the surface is scratched.

Get Your Game Together, George

I am somewaht disappointed in Pell. Any one of his specific assertions about Skeptic data can be disproved in five minutes by Googling the relevant counter-argument. It is apparent that Pell has not done basic cross-checking of Skeptic-sourced facts. In this way he has become an uncritical conduit for bad science and lazy commentary which serves the ‘ruthless commercial forces’ he so accurately said prey upon youth and society in general.

Pell’s community deserves better than that and as a custodian of an influential moral position which even non-Catholics respect, he is letting all of Australia down on this issue. He has become a patsy for the Denialists.

Pell must know that Climate is a particularly cutting-edge issue amongst youth. If Australian Catholic youth come to believe that their Cardinal is untrustworthy on Climate then he may just hasten the departure to Paganism he is so desperate to prevent.

In my opinion, it is in Pell’s interests that he upgrade his knowledge on Climate and correct his own record on the topic. In his shoes I would start immediately. Next time he is interviewed on Climate he should repudiate some of his own prior assertions such as those above. In this way he can gain proper credibility on Climate Change based on facts, not merely his position.

Last Word On Lyre Bird

I do not think Pell is a liar, but blinded and controlled by bias emenating from otherwise worthy motivations. I also suspect Pell possesses an innate conservatism unrelated to his Catholicism which may cause him to reject almost any progressive cause thus further predisposing Pell to deny Climate Change. It is this innate conservative which leads him to describe consider for the Climate Change thesis as a mere ‘enthusiasm’ which will soon pass.

But its time to wake up, George. Get that junk out of your nest.

Appendix

Here’s a great, brief encapsulation of argument against the Denialist position by David Karoly the brilliant Professor Of Earth Sciences at Melbourne University.