The Christian Climate Thorn
A number of years ago, living in small-town Montana, I would often quip that ‘rush hour’ in our little community started at 11:00 AM when folks tuned their radios to the late Rush Limbaugh program for a full hour. Except for a time or two, I rarely ever listened to his radio message, but do remember one episode quite explicitly.
Several years ago, Limbaugh alleged that ‘environment whackos’, his indomitable nomenclature, hated Christianity because of Genesis 1:26 thru 29 which reads:
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Now, your faith in these passages, or the Bible in general, is yours alone; however, I make the very next comparison for your secular or non-secular scrutiny - you alone decide. Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University. The two disciplines may seem distant, but I assure you they are explicitly joined at the hip. It seems from the linked article one of her major efforts is endeavoring to connect Christians with a belief in climate change, alleging that their faith inhibits them from believing in the theory.
She claims, citing from the New Testament, that climate change advocacy is scripturally proclaimed:
1 Peter 4:10
Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.
John 13:34–35
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
All scriptural verses, including those from Genesis, are from the same New International Version of the Bible.
It would seem to me that anyone could use Hayhoe's verses to campaign on anything they desired and then justify its relevance or applicability. I could say, for example, that I am so devoted to an honest world that I detail the corruption of anthropogenic climate change and God must assuredly agree since the deceit is endangering his people.
Hayhoe’s husband Andrew Farley is a pastor in Lubbock, Texas with the “Church without Religion”. I immediately assumed that perhaps it was atheist, secularist, or perhaps revered and honored something other than a specific deity.
I looked up their website. I read their tenets, reviewed their declarations, and even watched one of their Pastor’s sermons. Nothing about it portrayed or depicted the “without Religion” part, but I suppose it’s fashionable, perhaps trendy, and attractive to those having an aversion to Christian statements of faith, dogma, and creeds of orthodox religion - or the inconvenience of going to church on Sundays.
Farley was originally a climate skeptic, but apparently, in building a house of harmony, he has changed his tune and I suspect she somehow gets her Biblical climate change advocacy and declaration from his church.
I received the linked article recently, but found it sounding very familiar – that’s because I read it a few years ago when it was first published. The article is apparently making its rounds anew – a fascist tact of the “big lie” I must assume.
Here’s what I found rather strange about her assertions to Texas Monthly magazine author Sonia Smith:
· She uses the 97% of climate scientists’ consensus allegation which has been proven more incorrect and corrupt than OJ’s testimony in his 1995 murder trial. The 97% glove hasn't seemed to fit either. One would think an atmospheric scientist would have more ammunition than that – even the BS kind.
· She claims to have peered at stars at the top of one of the educational buildings at the University of Toronto. People in these large urban areas often travel great distances to see the stars that are hidden by the inordinate amount of illumination in sizeable cities - apparently not so in her case.
· She states, “What a lot of people don’t realize is that the most important skill any climate scientist has is programming.” This is true since computer modeling is the prominent and most notorious aspect of all proponent climate science work. Why, because computer modeling of temperatures, input by humans and run through coded algorithms always run hot. Secondly, we have learned since 2007 that 96% of weather stations from which the raw data is drawn are corrupted and influenced by heat islands, machinery, and other heat-producing mechanisms. The single greatest adversary of modeling – reality!
· This scientist has left astrophysics to do policy-relevant research. In other words, work for government policy and strategy where advocating climate science brings in funding and political prominence with politicians endeavoring to revolutionize the country’s economic system.
· She further asserts, “Putting a price on carbon just frees up business to do what it does best.” Huh? If anyone can explain why increasing costs frees up business and enhances customer satisfaction, please I beg for your assistance. It makes about as much sense as her statement, “Texas is unique, in that it is one of the states that have the most to lose economically from climate-change impacts, but Texas also has the most to gain by transitioning to a clean-energy economy.” The first issue is not happening or is certainly far from proven, and the second is economic suicide for the State. None of these scientists seem to have ever taken economics 101, but have a Certificate of Participation in Ruination 202.
Hayhoe quotes admiringly from John Holdren, former President Obama’s Science Czar. Holdren along with his friend and mentor, Paul Ehrlich have suggested, as I have written prior, the most heinous methods of controlling the growth of the human population.
I find this Hayhoe effort quite compelling since most climate change advocates worship at the altar of Gaia where the earth has neurophysiological characteristics. It has feelings and emotions and, as Nancy Pelosi claims, gets angry at any unacceptable conduct by humans.
However Hayhoe’s mission is not unprecedented - instead of immersing himself in the salvation of his followers, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, AKA Pope Francis, continues to immerse himself in climate advocacy and corruption.
The Pope has brought his Argentinean background of politics and creed fully into the Vatican. He grew up under Argentinean “Perónism” a form of socialism initiated by Juan Perón who was the long-serving president of that country. Pope Francis commands his Catholic priesthood to advocate for anthropogenic climate change at every opportunity. Whether they do or not I am uncertain.
In any event, while I certainly don’t agree with her climate assessment, I do understand the reason for Hayhoe’s partisan political pursuits. Although declining, “The 2020 Census of American Religion” says 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and according to the Pew Research Center, “a majority don’t buy the science behind man-made climate change”.
If more agree with climate change progressive policies are easier to push and elections easier to win.