The Old Testament – that part of the Bible shared by Christians and Jews – is a harsh history of creation and destruction. The Great Flood – covered in Genesis, chapters 6-9 – was God’s flooding the earth, punishing mankind for the evil they had perpetrated, returning our world to its pre-creationist state. 150 days of flood, 220 days of drying out and restoration. When it was over, “God makes a pledge of commitment to Noah in Genesis 9:1–17. The priestly (Elohim) version takes the form of a covenant arrangement. This is the first explicit act of a covenant in the Hebrew Bible and is used seven times in this episode. God commits to continue both human and animal life and vows to never again use a second deluge against humanity. The covenant is sealed with the sign of a rainbow, after a storm, as a reminder.
“God blesses Noah and his sons using the same language as the priestly source of the Genesis creation narrative, ‘Be fruitful and increase and fill the earth.’ Before the flood, animals and humans coexisted in a realm of peace only knowing a vegetarian diet. After the flood, God maintained that mankind would be in charge over the animals, granting that they may be eaten for food under the condition that their blood be removed. God set these purity rules well before any transaction with Ancient Israel, effectively not confining such precedence solely to the Jewish faith. Human life receives special divine sanction because humanity is in the image of Elohim.” Wikipedia.
Despite the exceptionally-well-substantiated and recently released United Nations International Panel on Climate Change Report that indicates a 95% certainty that global climate change is primarily due to manmade causes, creating a greenhouse effect by burning fossil fuels, and dire predictions about rising temperatures, melting ice, the impact on disease and insect life, the expected droughts and flooding, there is a very sizeable segment in the world, including a large group of American evangelical Christians, that passionately believe that the world was given to humanity to use and exploit in God’s abundance and that the rainbow covenant is His personal pledge never again to destroy the planet, interpreted to mean that He would never let climate change decimate our environment. God, they believe, is the sole controller and creator of climate and what happens in or to our environment.
This religious belief is slowly eroding in the eyes of even this deeply religious contingent, but there are diehard factions who simply do not believe that such a catastrophe would be allowed to continue in defiance of what they believe is God’s promise not to destroy us… again. And every time these reports confirming global warming are released, whenever statistics supporting the pollution and damage being inflicted by mankind on the environment are published, editors to mainstream periodicals are flooded with emails and letters crying this “unfounded” theory of climate change, excoriating those who fail to appreciate God’s word, labeling these statements as a great “hoax.”
So the October 21st Mother Jones approached the editors of some of those newspapers to see how they currently handle such zealous letters. He are a few of the results of the inquiry:
“But recently, the Los Angeles Times took a stand against this type of misinformation. Paul Thornton, the paper's letters editor, wrote that he doesn't print letters asserting that ‘there's no sign humans have caused climate change.’ Why? Because, he wrote, such a statement is a factual inaccuracy, and "I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page." …‘It's our policy as well not to run letters to the editor that are factually inaccurate, so we wouldn't publish a letter that simply says, 'there's no sign humans have caused climate change,'" Washington Post letters editor Mike Larabee said in an email. ‘That's a broad absolute that doesn't take into account the existence of large amounts of science indicating otherwise.’ He added, however, that the Post wants its letters section to reflect a "broad spectrum" of views and that it has ‘published letters that are skeptical or raise questions about the scientific consensus. In general, these have been letters that we think make informed and interesting points challenging the science or the way it's used. It's a complex topic that's no more above critical scrutiny than anything else.’… Larabee pointed to recent letters printed by the Post, including one that stated, ‘Remember, had there not been climate change, we'd never have gotten out of the Ice Age.’…
“The Dallas Morning News doesn't have ‘a firm policy’ on climate change letters, according to Michael Landauer, the paper's digital communities manager, though he added that he plans to discuss the matter further internally. ‘In the past, we have run letters where people express doubt or take shots at those who accept the climate change consensus, but I'm not sure I would print one that says flat-out that there 'is no sign' climate change is caused by humans,’ he wrote in an email. ‘It may be their underlying belief on which they base their letter, but if someone were to assert that in that way, I don't think I'd allow it.’…
“Tim Nickens, editor of editorials at the Tampa Bay Times, said that his paper has a ‘broad policy’ that letters must be accurate. He said the paper probably wouldn't print a letter asserting that ‘humans aren't contributing to climate change at all’ if that claim wasn't backed up by scientific studies. He added that letters are assessed on a ‘case-by-case basis.’
“Brian Gallagher, editorial page editor at USA Today, said his paper has an ‘aggressive’ fact-checking process that applies to all letters and op-eds and that it won't print anything that is ‘flatly false.’ Beyond that, he said, the paper gives letter-writers ‘as much latitude as possible…to express their opinions.’… USA Today's editorial board—which Gallagher oversees—has a clear stance on global warming: It's real; there's overwhelming evidence humans are causing it; and urgent action is needed. But Gallagher says that none of those positions is ‘completely closed out’ from debate in the paper, so ‘it depends on the phrasing of the particular letter.’ He explained that although the bar for disputing climate change is increasingly high, the paper might allow a writer to cite contrarian scientists in order to argue against the scientific consensus.” There is more coverage, so it helps to review the entire piece.
To some in big media, notably Fox News, there are constant online and on-camera editorials (e.g., from reporters like Cal Thomas) submitting “proof” to debunk the climate change “theorists,” but even in this rather conservative venue, there is movement to face the realities of science. To those whose island homes are disappearing, who face storm surges and coastal flooding that are slowly taking away their homes and farms, others whose farms are drying up and blowing away, whose lives a threatened by raging fires and horrific hurricanes… there is small consolation that there are those, exercising their freedom of religion/expression rights under the First Amendment, are doing everything in their power to stop efforts to contain the exploitation and burning of fossil fuels.
In the end, if those sticking to the rainbow covenant are right, we will see an undoing of this environmental degradation by divine intervention. If they are wrong, we will lose so much of what we value. To those who fear these climatic horrors, they look at those who deny the changes and say, “Even if you are right, what is the harm to you by our trying to stop the process?” Money? Inconvenience? Is it remotely possible that God is in fact promoting efforts to reverse climate change by inspiring people to care? How do you feel about climate change deniers?
I’m Peter Dekom, and just one photograph of Beijing air or the after-effects of Superstorm Sandy are enough for me.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment