Читать книгу The Intimidation Factor - Charles Redfern - Страница 11

Few arenas display Evangelicalism’s bully takeover more than climate change, where the coal mine’s canary has been hacking, spitting, and turning blue.

Deniers of the scientific consensus, often trained in political advocacy and marketing techniques, yell at the bird. They question its motives, tell it the fumes are imaginary, and drop hints that it’s wheezing a heretical wheeze. Consensus-driven evangelical moderates rallied to the cause at first, then muted their voices when the fists slammed the tables. The sad result: The deniers hogged the microphone for far too long, needlessly embarrassing biblically-centered Christianity and harming the Gospel’s advocacy.

The Board of Directors for the National Association of Evangelicals finally displayed moral courage in its resolution of October, 2015. The key sentence: “A changing climate threatens the lives and livelihoods of the world’s poorest citizens.”9 Unfortunately but predictably, news outlets barely mentioned the statement, and American evangelical Christianity still houses the headquarters for anti-scientific denialism.

I deeply respect the NAE, which represents forty member denominations and a plethora of groups and individuals. I admire its recently-retired president, Leith Anderson. He wisely shepherded the organization through pain and controversy when he took the helm in 2006. I have no wish to sully its reputation. But the NAE’s slow response, however understandable, makes for a case study in bully evangelicalism’s dynamics: Intimidators foment fear while conflict-adverse moderates silence themselves in the name of unity.

The Realities

Cold reality prompts the canary’s cough. Fact: The world’s glaciers are shrinking. Fact: The polar ice caps are melting. Another fact: Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman discovered that 97% of all active climatologists are agreed—human activity spurs the Earth’s rising temperatures, weird weather, glacial melting, and the ocean’s acidification.10 Then there are the reports: A federal advisory draft released in January, 2013, predicted catastrophe unless policies change,11 as did a World Bank warning in November, 2012.12 A UN study revealed that this century’s first decade was the hottest in 160 years.13 The 2018 reports grew even more ominous: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that average global temperatures may cross the crucial 1.5-degree Celsius threshold as early as 2030.14 A Congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment came the following month. It described climate change in the present tense and warned of rapidly rising sea levels.15

These facts and reports—as well as wild fires, droughts and super storms—resemble that poor canary in the coal mine, whose death signaled dangerous methane levels and the need for action.

Surely evangelical Christians can emulate their Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters and explore this dilemma without fear. No historic creed is at stake and Scripture advocates creation care: We’re the Lord’s designated stewards (Genesis 1:27–30). We were called to guard God’s sanctuary (a more literal rendering of the wording in Genesis 2:15). Our Earthly rule fits Walter Kaiser’s description: “The gift of ‘dominion’ over nature was not intended to be a license to use or abuse selfishly the created order in any way men and women saw fit. In no sense were humans to be bullies and laws to themselves.”16 Kaiser is right: God’s leadership motif is “help” (Psalm 121:1–2), and service (Matthew 20:28). Psalms 19 and 104 testify to God’s glory in creation and Romans 8:18–22 looks forward to its redemption. Kudos to Francis of Assisi, who cherished the animals and plants. And just to make sure everything’s on the up-and-up, we’ve had our inside people: Sir John Houghton, a British evangelical, co-chaired the IPCC for many years.17 Katharine Hayhoe, a Billy Graham fan, pastor’s wife, and Texas Tech university professor, has served as a reviewer for the IPCC.18

The evidence, the Bible, and historic Christianity motivated 280 leaders to sign the petition, “Climate Change, An Evangelical Call to Action” in 2006.19The names read like an evangelical VIP litany: Andy Crouch, then Christianity Today’s executive editor; Jack Hayford of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; Gordon P. Hugenberger of Parkstreet Church in Boston; Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College; Gordon MacDonald, editor-at-large for Leadership Magazine; David Neff, also of Christianity Today; Tri Robinson, pastor of the Boise Vineyard; Berten Waggoner, then the National Director of the Vineyard USA; and Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback. To name a few. What’s more, 44 Southern Baptist leaders, including the convention’s president and two past presidents, signed the initiative, “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change.”

A wrench is thrown

But something was amiss. In some circles, calling attention to the hacking canary was both unpatriotic and unorthodox. Many were swayed. I’ve already mentioned my experience as a pastor: I was blasted as a “liberal” (perish the thought) because I agreed with these two assertions:

•“There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it.”20

•“we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security.”21

The late Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona wrote the first quote in 2007, along with Senator Joe Lieberman. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wrote the second in 2009 along with Democrat John Kerry. The senators, along with retired generals and admirals alarmed about climate change’s potential security concerns,22 implicitly invited us to embrace an opportunity: We can shelve annoying labels. Let’s brew enough caffeine to spike our blood pressure, roll in the whiteboards, and brainstorm while pacing back and forth with our Type A personalities on full display . . .

No. We’re “liberal.” We’ve failed a vague orthodoxy test, which means we’re worse than erroneous: We’re suspect. Forget evidence, the biblical mandate for stewarding creation, precedent, and recognized authorities. According to a 2007 CNN article, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Institute speculated that climate change is part of a leftist agenda threatening evangelical unity.23 The late Jerry Falwell proclaimed this from his pulpit on February 25 of that year: “I am today raising a flag of opposition to this alarmism about global warming and urging all believers to refuse to be duped by these ‘earthism’ worshipers.”24 Calvin Beisner, head of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, suggested the worries are “an insult to God.”25 He also insinuated that diminishing our oil dependence aligns us with the unfaithful steward of Matthew 25:14–30.26 After all, the oil is there: God gave it to us. We should use it (the same logic would render us fickle if we failed to smoke marijuana as well; after all, it’s there for the asking). His organization veered close to rendering anthropogenic climate change a theological impossibility in its Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”27

That’s naïve. Our species is not immune to world-wide calamity. Remember the fourteenth century, when nature and human activity wed in a ghoulish marriage. Commerce flowed over new trade routes between East and West and conveyed flea-bearing rats. The fleas leaped onto humans and infected them with the Black Death. Roughly half of all Europe died.

I long to ask: Who defines unity? Is assessing evidence and asking questions inherently disruptive? Is it wrong to seek solutions to a potentially grave problem—especially since there are virtually no doctrinal risks (Beisner notwithstanding)? Apparently, yes. We’re pagan “earthism” worshipers. We’re divisive conspirators in a leftist plot—never mind that Perkins was flourishing a rhetorical ploy with a one-two punch: levy a nebulous charge no one can disprove; then, as the opponent reels, accuse him of divisiveness. Any challenge fulfills the charge. Few can stay calm and ask: Who is calling whom names? Who flings the accusations and mows down the straw men? Who is really divisive?

But none of those questions stems the accusatory tide. Deniers of climate change grab any real or imagined flaw. I’ve been warned, over coffee and doughnuts, that I’m falling prey to Al Gore, who, apparently, is evil incarnate and wields hypnotic power. The ice caps will recover if he vanishes—just like the Vietnam War would have evaporated if a tiger ate Dan Rather. I try to tell people I’ve never seen An Inconvenient Truth, but no one believes me.

Gotcha . . . Maybe Not

For a brief moment in 2009, it looked like the deniers were onto something. Computer hackers stole more than 1,000 e-mails from a research unit at Great Britain’s University of East Anglia. The e-mails, dating back some 13 years, held reams of information, “everything from the mundanities of climate-data collection to comments on international scientific politics to strongly worded criticisms by climate-change doubters,” to quote Bryan Walsh of Time.28 There seemed to be references to oppressing opposition, withholding information, pressuring editorial boards of academic journals, and skewing research.

Besides, the e-mails weren’t nice.

The unit’s head, Phil Jones, took a leave of absence pending an investigation.

Nothing came of it. Parliamentary and university reports exonerated Jones. Perhaps he could have been more forthcoming and more couth, but, in the words of the parliamentary committee: “In the context of sharing data and methodologies, we consider Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community.”29 References to performing research “tricks” were in-house slang for legitimate scientific procedures—and yes, Jones and his e-mail partners were a little rough in their private e-mails. They didn’t anticipate their theft.

What a scandal.

The Moderate Voice—or lack of it

At first, the moderates—epitomized by the gentlemanly NAE—vied for the lead on this issue. The NAE’s 2004 framework for social engagement, entitled “For The Health of the Nation,” delineated seven vital arenas: religious freedom, family life and children, the sanctity of life, caring for the poverty-stricken and helpless, human rights, peacemaking, and creation care. One eventual outcome: Dorothy Boorse’s 56-page pamphlet, “Loving The Least of These: Addressing A Changing Environment.” The Gordon College professor stressed that “environmental change” strikes the poor most severely. Richard Cizik, the organization’s vice president of government affairs, spurred seismic shifts that would free the movement from reactionary captivity. Climate change was one of his top priorities.

Push-back arose, of course. James Dobson tried to get Cizik fired, but the NAE president at the time, Ted Haggard, was unimpressed: “The last time I checked,” he told Dobson, “you weren’t in charge of the NAE.”30 A more muted approach came early in 2006 from the so-called “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance,” the Cornwall Alliance’s predecessor. The signatories—among whom were the distinguished Charles Colson along with a who’s-who in the Religious Right, including James Dobson (again), John Hagee, the late James Kennedy, and Richard Land—said they “appreciated the bold stance that the (NAE) has taken on controversial issues like embracing a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage and family, promoting abstinence as AIDS prevention, and many others,” but they requested it lay off climate change: it was “not a consensus issue.” An “official stance” should be filtered through official channels, and “individual NAE members or staff should not give the impression that they are speaking on behalf of the entire membership, so as not to usurp the credibility and good reputation of the NAE.” Then came the twist: “We respectfully ask that the NAE carefully consider all policy issues in which it might engage in the light of promoting unity among the Christian community and glory to God.”31

To underscore: NAE officials were “bold” when advocating the signatories’ positions but potentially divisive (“. . . in the light of promoting unity . . .”) on climate change. Invoking “unity” often knocks the debate off the merits. Suddenly, a thousand eggshells rattle across the floor, freezing us in our tracks lest we break our delicate bonds. Don’t even dare ask: What about your position’s potential divisiveness? Have you pondered our possible disunity with Christianity’s other legitimate branches, such as Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and traditional Protestantism? They’ve endorsed the scientific consensus.

It worked. The NAE blinked. Haggard answered in late January by defending the organization’s pro-environment stance but demurring on climate change. His executive committee directed NAE staffers “to stand by and not exceed in any fashion our approved and adopted statements concerning the environment contained within the Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” Catch a glimpse of American evangelicalism’s blind spot toward the end. Haggard said: “I believe there are pro-environment, pro-free market, pro-business answers to the environmental questions facing our community.”

Do the Scriptures rally to free enterprise? Cultural standards were now mixed into a back-to-the-Bible organization, a charge evangelicals often levy against theological liberals. And pro-creation statements ring hollow without identifying its destructive agents. Imagine federal authorities banning the mention of cigarettes while promoting cancer-free living.

The year, 2006, proved pivotal. In February, 86 evangelical leaders—including pastors, 39 Christian college presidents, and not a few current NAE board members—signed the “Evangelical Climate Initiative,” which asserted the reality of human-induced global warming and said it imperiled national security and the poverty-stricken: “Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action. Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors.” In May, one of the last creditable denial hold-outs, Gregg Easterbrook, cried uncle: “Based on the data I’m now switching sides on global warming, from skeptic to convert.”32

But then calamity struck. In November, Haggard resigned in the wake of a sexual scandal. Anderson, who served as president before, was recalled and brought his steady hand. The evangelical world breathed a sigh of relief. “There’s an enormous trust that people have with (Anderson), and that allows him to lead,” said Jo Anne Lyon, general superintendent of the Wesleyan church.33 The Minnesota megachurch pastor brought administrative efficiency and showed he was no right-wing poster boy: He opposed the death penalty, supported immigration reform, and signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative. A Religion News Service profile said he “continues to press the issue of justice for the poor in the developing world, working hard behind the scenes to craft an official NAE statement on climate change.”34 Anderson’s pastoral style seemed the right prescription for a stunned organization laboring under a recent leadership humiliation—and it fit with the NAE’s gentlemanly and lady-like ethos.

Calamity struck again in 2008. National Public Radio’s Fresh Air host, Terry Gross, asked Cizik a question in an on-air interview: “A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?” Cizik waffled: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

This went too far those who believe we should insist on the Church’s traditional teaching on sex (I’m among them). Cizik apologized for his comment and re-affirmed the NAE’s official stance, but it was too late. He stepped down from the NAE.

Christianity Today interviewed Anderson immediately after Cizik’s resignation. He said NAE officials should speak for the association, not for themselves. When asked about Cizik’s climate change advocacy, he replied: “’For the Health of the Nation’ does state that creation care is one of our priorities. It does not state in that document that we have a specific position, because we don’t, on global warming or emissions. So he (Cizik) has spoken as an individual on that. However, to most of our constituents, marriage and related moral issues and of greater importance and significance than specific stances on the climate.”35

The question hovers: “But is it right?” Does the Bible prioritize family moralities over others? Did you, Anderson, not sign a statement underscoring the moral imperative entwined in climate change? Post-interview quarterbacking is easy (and let’s shout “take two” on Cizik’s NPR conversation), but we’re left with that vague “opportunity lost” feeling. Reel back the tape. Say this: “The NAE has no formal position on climate change, but Richard was educating us and I’m on record as agreeing with him. I hope the education process can go on.” No doubt some would have screamed for Anderson’s professional head so they could line it up on Cizik’s platter, but aren’t mega-church pastors writing books on courageous leadership? Did NAE heroes like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley—or founding President Harold Ockenga—poll their constituents? Haven’t evangelicals always claimed that truth trumps popularity? Otherwise, Ockenga would have fawned before Henry Emmerson Fosdick and Carl Henry would never have written The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism.

Perhaps the NAE ailed with the same malady once infecting me: Conflict avoidance in the guise of resolution. Many in its institutions and churches offer courses in communication and negotiation in an attempt to quell their internecine battles. Such efforts are laudable, but they can lead to unintended consequences: Argument (the process of defending a viewpoint by marshaling facts in a quest for the truth) is deemed intrinsically bad. Suddenly, we’re nomads in the labyrinth of passive aggressiveness, choked by stilted “I statements” and confined by the tyranny of the sensitive. And, for the sake of “unity,” absurdities gain the respect of actualities. Imagine representatives from the Flat Earth Society and the American Astronomical Society sitting at the same table while Luther withdraws his 95 Theses because he did not validate the bishop’s feelings. Meanwhile, bullies see concessions as weaknesses: The Flat Earthers pound the table, yield nothing, display offense when the astronomers show photographs of a round planet, and demand a wider audience. The sad fact is that enemy-centered, antagonistic parties do not play for win-win resolutions.

More on that dynamic later. Suffice it to say that such has been the scene in the debates over climate change and creation care: The deniers kept at it while the moderates demurred, darkening discussions over national policy.

For instance . . .

A few samples of denial in Christ’s name illuminate the underlying dynamic.

Sample One: In 2009, Republican US Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois read from Genesis 8:21–22 in a hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.” Then a passage from Matthew 24: “And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” The Congressman interpreted: “The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood . . . I do believe that God’s word is infallible. Unchanging. Perfect.”

I applaud Shimkus’ reverence for God’s Word. I’ll also point out that most credible scientists are not predicting the earth’s destruction or humanity’s extinction. They are, however, forecasting droughts, weird weather, and rising sea levels—all of which expand the possibilities of calamity.

Shimkus also said this: “Today we have about 388 parts per million [of carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere. I think in the age of the dinosaurs, when we had most flora and fauna, were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.”36

Sea levels in the dinosaur era were 550 feet higher than today’s. Much of the modern United States was under water.

Sample Two: Shimkus was at it again in 2012, when Mitch Hescox, President and CEO of the Evangelical Climate Network, testified before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee on the merits of Environmental Protection Agency regulations aimed at reducing mercury pollution from coal-fired plants (research indicates that one in six children are born with threatening mercury levels). Hescox stood on a solid consistent life foundation, which places the protection of the unborn within a broader pro-life context: All human life is sacred, from conception to the grave—which means curbing mercury levels is a pro-life issue. “Let’s not endanger our children with a substance we can control,” said Hescox. “We must protect the weakest in our society, the unborn, from mercury poisoning.”

Shimkus responded by reading a statement from the Cornwall Alliance web site: “The life in pro-life denotes not quality of life but life itself” and only refers to “opposition to a procedure that intentionally results in dead babies.”37 Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) employed the guilt-by-association tactic: “I find it extremely ironic that Rev. Michell Hescox and the Evangelical Environmental Network think that the pro-life agenda is best aligned with a movement that believes there are too many people in the world, actively promotes population control, and sees humans principally as polluters.”38

Apparently, Senator Inhofe was unaware that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops also supported the regulations.

Sample Three: The Family Research Council had already impugned Hescox and the EEN when it claimed the organization “has received funding from such liberal groups as the Rockefeller Foundation, and specific signatories are beneficiaries of the largesse of far-Leftists like George Soros and Ted Turner” (Hescox denied that charge). An FRC e-mail issued a dire caution: “Since the beginning, factious people and religious cults have tried to infiltrate, divide, deceive and delude us (Ephesians 6:10–13).” So EEN is suspect.

I cry to the FRC: Why are you so sure you have not been seduced, deceived, and deluded?

Sample Four comes from Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy. While dazed Philippine survivors picked through debris of Typhoon Haiyan, he inaccurately blogged on November 13, 2013: “Much of the worst hysteria about apocalyptic Global Warming has cooled, especially after more than 15 years of no global temperature increases, evincing at least that climate computer models are less than infallible.” He then skipped past warnings from President Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Schultz,39 The World Bank, the US commander of the Pacific Fleet,40 a dozen retired admirals and generals,41 two hundred evangelical scientists,42 the Christian Reformed Church (an NAE member),43 and the many leaders who signed Evangelical Climate Initiative, and declared: “Some of the most committed believers in the theory that human activity is uniquely fueling a disastrous increase in temperature are on the Religious Left.” He singled-out former Chicago Theological Seminary President Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, “who’s ordained in the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ” and who “faulted Global Warming skeptics for the murderous typhoon in the Philippines.” She allegedly displays “unwavering faith in apocalyptic global warming” and “strict adherence to climate fundamentalism.” His last line evokes Greek mythology’s earth goddess: “But zealots like Thistlethwaite will not likely forsake the solace of Gaia’s temple, from which they’ll continue to issue thunderbolts against the heretics who dare to doubt.”44

I could supply other samples, but that will do for now.

Many US evangelicals are in danger of sealing themselves in a clannish cul-de-sac, perhaps isolating themselves from their own international tribe. Their brothers and sisters throughout the world embrace the imperative of addressing human-induced climate change. Yet the deniers have monopolized the US debate, invoking “unity” to silence their perceived enemies while growing shriller themselves. This is not sound argument. This is classic intimidation.

Unfortunately, climate change is a symptom of an overall ethos. We’ll probe another symptom in the next chapter.

9. “Caring For God’s Creation: A Call To Action,” https://www.nae.net/caring-for-gods-creation/.

10. Doran & Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos, Volume 90, 21–22.

11. Gillis, “An Alarm in the Offing on Climate Change,” New York Times Green: A Blog About Energy and the Environment, January 14, 2013.

12. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, Turn Down The Heat, November, 2012; cf., Schneider, “World Bank warns of ‘4-degree’ threshold of global temperature increase,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2012. Also see Eilperin, “World on track for nearly 11-degree temperature rise, energy expert says,” Washington Post, November 28, 2011.

13. UN News Center, “New UN report cites ‘unprecedented climate extremes’ over past decade,” July 3, 2013.

14. The report can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.

15. Found here: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/.

16. Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 89.

17. See Houghton’s presentation to the National Association of Evangelicals:“Climate Change: A Christian Challenge and Opportunity,” March 2005.

18. See Hayhoe & Farley, A Climate for Change.

19. Goodstein, “Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative,” The New York Times, February 8, 2006.

20. McCain & Liebermann, “The Turning Point on Global Warming,” The Boston Globe, February 13, 2007

21. Kerry & Graham, “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation),” New York Times, October 10, 2009

22. Eleven retired generals and admirals, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” 2007.

23. CNN, “Global Warming Gap Among Evangelicals Widens,” March 14, 2007,.

24. Banks, “Dobson, Others Seek Ouster of NAE Vice President,” Religion News Service, March 2, 2007.

25. Beisner, Calvin, “Believing in Climate Change is an Insult to God,” Right Wing Watch, November 19, 2012.

26. Fisher & Beisner, “Using Fossil Fuels Is An Insult to God,” Right Wing Watch, November 20, 2012.

27. See the full statement at, https://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

28. Walsh,“Has ‘Climategate’ Been Overblown?” Time Magazine, December 7, 2009.

29. Romm, “House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones,” ThinkProgress: Climate Progress, March 30, 2010.

30. Sullivan, The Party Faithful, 191

31. The letter can be found here: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/appeal-letter-to-the-national-association-of-evangelicals-on-the-issue-of-global-warming.pdf.

32. Easterbrook, The New York Times, June 24. 2006.

33. Macdonald, “Pawlenty’s pastor stays politically neutral,” USATODAY.com, June 21, 2011.

34. Macdonald, “Pawlenty’s pastor stays politically neutral,” USATODAY.com, June 21, 2011.

35. Pulliam, “Interview: NAE President Leith Anderson on Richard Cizik’s Resignation,” Christianity Today, December 11, 2008.

36. Quoted in Parkes, “The Politics of Global Warming,” in Environmental Philosophy, 88

37. Quoted here: https://creationcare2015.wordpress.com/author/evangelicalenvironmentalnetwork/page/12/.

38. Imhof’s press release is quoted here: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=5E700C58–802A-23AD-478D-7FEF03416208; I commented on his statement: Redfern, “The Far Right Embarrasses The Pro-Life Movement—Again,” Huffpost, April 16, 2012.

39. Bielo, “A Republican Secretary of State Urges Action on Climate Change,” Scientific American, July 24, 2013.

40. Bender, “Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry,” Boston Globe, March 9, 2013.

41. Burns, “US Admirals, Generals, Link Climate Change To National Security,” Public News Service, 7/11/2013.

42. Hayhoe & Ackerman, “Climate Change: Evangelical Scientists Say Limbaugh Wrong, Faith and Science Complement One Another,” The Christian Post, 8/31/2013; see the evanagelical scientists’ letter here:: https://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/07/15/document_cw_02.pdf.

43. Christian Reformed Church News, “Synod Recognizes Climate Change,” 6/13/2012.

44. Tooley, “The Heresy of Doubting Apocalyptic Global Warming,” Juicy Ecumenism,, 11/13/2013.