Today in Oslo, Al Gore picked up the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him for producing and starring in a science fiction movie (I’m hoping Will Smith gets it next year for starring in a movie warning us about the ever-present zombie threat). Meanwhile, in Washington, Mean Green Evangelical fear-monger Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals took another tack in the effort to convince the world that the sky is falling: questioning the motives of those who disagree:
Cizik, whose work often places him in the position of an evangelical lobbyist, relayed an encounter with Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). The senator, according to Cizik, questioned the efficacy of unilateral American measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The NAE official replied: “‘Well, Sam, God isn’t going to ask you whether China or India did their part. He’s going to ask you did you do your part, and he’s going to hold you to a higher standard than even me.’” Cizik continued, “And frankly, I would wish that the White House and even the President of the United States would get that picture, that he would be held accountable.” Cizik added an ominous warning, borrowing words from the letter to the Hebrews (10:31) about the damnation of those who forsake the faith: “It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Apparently Cizik is on board with the Goracle’s efforts to found a new religion, one in which God will not judge us on our response to Christ, but on our carbon footprint.
Cizik compared politicians who are not environmentally active to the Persian King Darius, portrayed as indecisive and malleable in the Old Testament book of Daniel. Just as Darius was forced to chose between abiding by the letter of his kingdom’s law and saving his friend Daniel’s life, the NAE official stated, “I would say, tragically, until we see some grudging admission here by our own leaders, that we have a lot of Dariuses in this town that want to save their friends.” Indulging in some accusatory speculation about the motives of these politicians, he asked, “And who are some of their friends? Some of their friends are in the big utility, oil, and gas industries … and in saving their friends they sacrifice not only the empire, but also the entire planet.” Cizik did not acknowledge that some politicians might have principled reasons for opposing severe government-mandated reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
Indeed. Nor did he, according to this report, acknowledge that there is any debate at all, either about the anthropogenic nature of climate change, nor about what or how much needs to be done or can be done about it. In Cizik’s new faith, there are no questions asked, no doubts entertained, no lack of enthusiasm for the cause tolerated, and no complexities (such as economic effects that may harm more people than climate change) considered.
Cizik predicted that continued hesitation to impose such mandates would result in accelerated human-induced global warming, with dramatically rising sea levels and unprecedented natural disasters. He warned: “And so this is very serious business that if we in this country don’t get right and don’t get right quickly, … we are going to reach tipping points. But I’m more worried about the tipping points spiritually than I am tipping points climatically.”
Heresy from the new faith is not allowed, either.
Speaking before a mostly liberal Christian audience at the cathedral, Cizik gave a disparaging account of the motives of fellow evangelicals who disagreed with him on the climate change issue. He described evangelical resistance to steep government-mandated carbon emissions reductions as “a brew, a concoction of a lot of different ingredients.” But the NAE official stressed one hypothesis: that global warming skepticism was somehow linked to a lingering wariness towards the sciences, based in the evangelical reaction against 19th century Darwinism.
Cizik suggested that climate change was “sort of the victim of the origins debate.…” He elaborated on the image of evangelicals as anti-science: “‘Scientists believe in evolution,’ according to evangelicals. ‘I don’t believe in evolution, so I’m going to dismiss what the scientists are saying.’ And it’s an illogical syllogism, but that’s what has occurred…. Our mistrust, our distrust, our denial, and that has to change.” The NAE official did not note the fact that a number of those evangelicals who disagree with his views on global warming are natural scientists with full academic credentials.
At this point it’s Cizik who indulges in illogic. What does the “origins debate” have to do with anyone’s attitude toward science? And let’s grant that evolution is an accurate portrayal of scientific reality–what does that have to do with the accuracy of climate change science? Skepticism is usually thought of as one of the hallmarks of a scientific mindset, but as part of his effort to turn climate change into a new religion, Cizik has apparently thrown scientific skepticism out the window, and turned it into an object of faith instead.
Last time I checked, neither the IPCC report nor An Inconvenient Truth qualified as divine revelation. Many, probably most, of those who dissent from the New Climatological Orthodoxy do so, not because they are dense, or dishonest, or Luddite Neanderthals, or beholden to oil companies, but because they have looked at the scientific debate and concluded that the evidence is not yet sufficient to justify the enormous social upheaval and potential cost in poverty and death that the high priests of the new religion advocate. Here’s hoping that Richard Cizik gets that message before he alienates even more of the evangelicals that he allegedly represents in Washington.
Posted by David Fischler 
Posted by David Fischler 
