Worldview II, CMR’s Climate Change Myopia

Dear Group,

Yesterday I presented a transcript of an exchange between McMorris Rodgers and a geologist at Green Bluff on May 29th. I wish to highlight one part of that exchange:

CMR: Well, you look at the history of the world…and we’ve been through…we’ve been through times when the earth warmed and then also we’ve been through times when the Earth…there’s been more ice on…in the world. So look at the history of the world and there’s been some changes in the climate. Now…the human contribution to that?

Geologist: …I’m a geologist. I know all about global scale warming going back 4.5 billion years ago, but we’re arguing about something that has happened in the last sixty years and it’s incontrovertible that…

These words ring in my ears: CMR: “we’ve been through times when the earth warmed and then also we’ve been through times when the Earth…there’s been more ice on…in the world.”

I have no doubt McMorris Rodgers believes sincerely the doubts she expresses. My question is this: what is the worldview from which she makes her statement? From what background does she approach the evidence of climate science?

We have some clues. (See CMR–Who is She Really?) Prior to high school she attended a series of Christian schools. At age fifteen her family moved from remote British Columbia to a farm near Kettle Falls. There her education continued at the Columbia River Christian Academy, part of the Columbia River Bible Church. The “Statement of Faith” at their website states:

We believe that God created the universe in six literal, 24 hour periods. We reject evolution, the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, and Theistic Evolution as unscriptural theories of origin (Genesis 1-2; Ex. 20:11).

McMorris Rodgers went on to study at the Pensacola Christian College in 1986. Pensacola Christian is an “Independent Baptist liberal arts college.” Amid the gleaming modernity depicted on Pensacola Christian’s website is a document entitled “Articles of Faith.” Among those articles is the following:

We believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days, and that God created all life (Gen. 1). We reject the man-made theory of evolution occurring over millions of years and believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

A “young earth” literally created in six days about 6000 years ago are precepts of McMorris Rodgers’ entire formal education through college. (The age of the earth is probably not a topic of concern in her lengthy pursuit of an Executive MBA.)

The time frame lighting up in McMorris Rodgers mind when she refers to the “history of the world” in her Green Bluff exchange with the geologist is very short. It is likely an earth history contained in six millennia. In the audio you can almost hear her straining to acknowledge there actually have been times when “there’s been more ice.” Can she let herself even hear, much less comprehend, the idea of an earth 4.5 billion years old? 

Here’s the crux: All credible scientists understand the earth’s climate has changed over geologic time. Ice cores allow us to track those changes over hundreds of thousands of years. The present concern with global warming is expressed by the geologist when he says, “we’re arguing about something that has happened in the last sixty years.” It is not the fact of change, it is the rate of change driven by man’s release of greenhouse gases that should be ringing alarm bells. 

If McMorris Rodgers believes the earth is 6000 years old or has never grappled with the concept of geologic time, any warming or cooling she is willing to acknowledge has to have happened in a really, really short time period.. Sixty years to a young earth believer is a long period of time. To a geologist it is less than a blink. McMorris Rodgers is educationally and doctrinally ill-equipped to comprehend how the rate of change is a concern.

I believe that Cathy McMorris Rodgers is a sincere, good person who means well, is a good mother, who feels she is working hard, and who tries to do what she believes is right. She is socially pleasant. However, until she clearly demonstrates otherwise, we have every reason to conclude her very narrow education and all the hints we have of her worldview prevent her from intelligently assessing and responding to climate disruption.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

CMR on Climate Change/Global Warming

Dear Group,

Last week Scott Pruitt finally resigned, spinning is a swirl of scandal. His letter of resignation was replete with references to blessings, prayers, and “God’s providence.” Trump and Pruitt exchanged words of mutual admiration. Andrew Wheeler, another avowed foe of climate science, but better schooled (with his background as a coal lobbyist) in the nuances of swamp culture, will faithfully continue Pruitt’s climate science dismissal but do so with less fanfare. 

What is McMorris Rodgers’ stance on climate science and global warming, and how does her background and education inform that stance? 

If you have ever listened to McMorris Rodgers speak on the environment, you know she has a standard response to any question about global warming: She pivots immediately to her support for dams and clean hydropower. She strictly avoids any discussion of the science. Below is a transcription of an exchange between McMorris Rodgers and a questioner, a geologist, at Green Bluff on May 29:

Questioner: Could you share with us your personal views and opinions about global warming and climate change?

CMR: Ah, Ah.

Questioner: [interjecting] Personal views.

CMR: I believe in being a good steward. I believe that each one of us should do our part to make sure that we are leaving a better Earth to the next generation. Um, ah…we certainly all agree that we want clean air, clean water. I’m proud of in Eastern Washington that we have some the…we have clean renewable hydropower and I’ve been one of the strongest proponents of…ah…hydropower. Um…I think we really need to look closer as far as the science behind global warming…and…ah, what’s going on.

Questioner: But 97% of credentialed scientists agree that humankind is contributing to global warming are you siding with the 97% or the 3%?

CMR: Well, you look at the history of the world…and we’ve been through…we’ve been through times when the earth warmed and then also we’ve been through times when the Earth…there’s been more ice on…in the world. So look at the history of the world and there’s been some changes in the climate. Now…the human contribution to that? I agree that, as humans, I want to make sure we are being good stewards and that we’re, ya know, being wise and, ah, taking action..

Questioner: So you’re taking a pass on this, aren’t you? Thank you.

CMR: I think, ah, I dunno…what do you think we should do?

Questioner: Well, look, I’m a geologist. I know all about global scale warming going back 4.5 billion years ago, but we’re arguing about something that has happened in the last sixty years and it’s incontrovertible that…

CMR Interrupting: So what do you think we can do about it? I guess that’s my question. What do you think we should do?

Questioner: Agree with the Paris Accord. That’s is a good start.

CMR: And what would the Paris Accord actually gotten us?

Questioner: What has it gotten? Well, without the U.S. as a global sponsor for this it’s going to flounder. Luckily the French and the Europeans and others are reasonably active and every time they have an opportunity talk to a a government official they prod, they question, they say that the one thing which could be done by President Trump would be to honor the finding from the Paris Accord dating back three or four years ago. It doesn’t take a lot. In fact it is probably happening on the sidelines and there’s no official announcement this is the case.

CMR: My understanding of this is that it would have…we were talking about very little impact as far as, you know, changing the course that we’re on but a huge economic impact on America. That America would have been shouldering a lot of the cost as well as the impact of the limitations of the, of the [voice lowering and unintelligible]. So that’s my concern. We need to focus on results…with any regulation. We need to focus on results, we actually need to focus on what’s actually going to make a difference, not just empower a federal agency or government official to be able to dictate how you, how you live…or…how you, you know…

Another Voice: So what’s our government doing to get those results?

CMR: Well…ah…we need to change the way that we approach regulation…where it’s actually focusing on the result…result…not just…

The gist: clean hydropower, “stewardship,” doubt, and even a pivot to the supposed evils of regulation. Does she possess the education, the worldview that could allow her to understand even the basic evidence for global warming? If she does, I see no evidence of it in this exchange, only talking points. It is an opaque subject for her. I believe her worldview prevents her from considering, much less understanding, the issue. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s email.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry