Is Climate Change Denial a Sin?

Last updated on: August 14, 2011 at 9:03 pm by David Cruz-Uribe

Is Climate Change Denial a Sin? 2011-08-14T21:03:30-05:00 David Cruz-Uribe

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Let me begin by answering my own question: yes, I think it is. Below, I hope to make clear why I believe this to be the case.

But first, let me begin with some careful definitions. Climate change, also known as (anthropogenic) global warming is the scientific theory that as the result of the burning of fossil fuels for the past 200 years (and particular since the beginning of the 20th century) the natural carbon cycle of the Earth has been thrown out of balance, resulting in a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Other so-called greenhouse gases, particularly methane, are also accumulating. For simplicity I will lump them all together with CO2.) As a consequence of this build up, the Earth is retaining more heat (the “greenhouse effect”) and the Earth’s climate is beginning to respond in ways which will have severe negative consequences in the future: more extreme weather conditions, drought, species extinction, sea level rise.

In describing this body of knowledge as a “theory”, I am using the word in the precise sense it is used in the sciences: a coherent explanation, based on empirical data, that explains said data and makes predictions that can be tested by gathering additional data. It does not mean a mere supposition or guess, or something that has not been proved. Acceptance of a theory by scientists means that it has been scrutinized and tested, and is regarded as providing the best possible explanation of the evidence in light of other theories (in this case, for instance, the physics of heat transfer, atmospheric chemistry, etc.).

Global warming is nearly universally accepted by climate scientists. The consensus understanding is encapsulated in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Pontifical Academy of Sciences recently issued its own report, which provides a nice summary of the consensus:

Warming of the Earth is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is ‘very likely’—defined as more than 90% likely—to be the result of the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This warming is occurring in spite of masking by cooling aerosol particles—many of which are co-emitted by CO2-producing processes.

Some of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change include losses of coral reefs, forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems; a rate of species extinction many times faster than the historic average; and water and food shortages for many vulner- able peoples. Increasing sea level rise and stronger storm surges threaten vulnerable ecosystems and peoples, especially those in low-lying islands and coastal nations. The loss of mountain glaciers discussed here threatens downstream populations, especially during the dry season when glacial runoff is most needed.

Ongoing discussions about the evolution of the theory and recent experimental data can be found on innumerable blogs—see for example, here and here.

By climate change denial I mean the refusal to accept the reality of climate change. This generally takes the form of denying the validity of the theory or accepting the idea but downplaying or discounting the predictions of the theory to such an extent as to vitiate it. Climate change denial has become an article of faith among conservative Republicans. The earliest outspoken denial came from James Inhofe, who said, “I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax.” Sarah Palin denied it as well, putting her at odds with her running mate, John McCain: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” Michelle Bachmann agrees with Inhofe: “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” Rick Perry has said that global warming is “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Rick Santorum stated categorically that “There is no such thing as global warming.” Tim Pawlenty, who once believed in it to the extent that he supported “cap and trade” legislation to lower carbon emissions, has since changed his stance: he now says that “the weight of the evidence is that most of it, maybe all of it, is because of natural causes.”

It is important to note that most climate change deniers do not have any background in climate science or related fields. There are a handful of exceptions, the most prominent being Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Many more have scientific credentials in unrelated fields or have no particular expertise in any scientific field. And despite their credentials, the published work of both Spencer and Lindzen has met with a critical response from the broader climate science community. (See, for example, here for Lindzen and here for Spencer. Neither link is to peer-reviewed literature, but both provide good references for those interested.) Neither has been able to convince their peers of the validity of their arguments.

Finally, I do not include among climate change deniers those who accept the reality of climate change but reject proposed solutions, such as “cap and trade” or a carbon tax. The one prominent figure in this category that I am aware of is Mitt Romney, though there probably are others. I might disagree with them on solutions—especially since I not seen any realistic alternatives proposed—but we are in agreement on the problem. My concern is with those who deny that the problem exists.

We can now turn to my original question: is climate change denial a sin? I believe that it is. More specifically, it is a sin against the eighth commandment: you shall not bear false witness. In a word, it is lying. The Catechism defines lying as follows: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth” (2483). If the theory of climate change is true—and the overwhelming consensus of those qualified to hold an opinion is that it is—then denying it or calling it a hoax is to “speak against the truth.” And given the gravity and universality of the impact that climate change will have in the future, every person has a right to know the truth about it.

One could argue that while those who deny the reality of climate change are in error, they are not deliberately lying since they are ignorant of the truth and express their beliefs sincerely. This is possible, but it strains my credulity to believe it. Further, it raises the question of whether this ignorance is involuntary or willful. Thomas Aquinas explained the difference in this way:

It is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act. …This may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is *bound and able to know.” (Summa I-II, q. 76, a. 1, a. 3)

Given the importance of determining whether or not the theory of climate change is correct, it seems obvious that everyone, but people in positions of authority in particular, have a positive obligation to learn the truth. The evidence strongly suggests that, at least among Republicans in Congress, their actions are “of set purpose to be ignorant of” the science of climate change. Last March, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology held a hearing on climate change. The one witness allowed to the Democrats was Kerry Emmanuel, an atmospheric scientist at MIT, who testified,

I am here today to affirm my profession’s conclusion that human beings are influencing climate and that this entails certain risks. If we have any regard for the welfare of our descendents, it is incumbent on us to take seriously the risks that climate change poses to their future and to confront them openly and honestly.

The five witnesses that the Republicans called included a lawyer, an economist and a professor of marketing, none of whom had any expertise in the science of climate change. Two were scientists: one a well known climate change skeptic (John Christy, a colleague of Roy Spencer) and Richard Mueller of Berkeley. Both were expected to disagree with the consensus; however, Mueller surprisingly testified in favor of the consensus view. (He was quickly excoriated by climate change deniers, even though prior to his testimony they were lauding his work.) Paul Krugman, in his weekly column, offered the following reflection on this witness list:

For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage. But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence.

From this I can draw no other conclusion than that most if not all climate change deniers, including the Republicans in the House, and other prominent Republican politicians, are willfully refusing to engage with the truth and are therefore deliberately sinning by propagating this error. I do not want to parse their motivations, which are probably legion. But I think it is important to establish this fact about their behavior clearly: in denying the reality of climate change, they are lying.

Climate Change

David Cruz-Uribe

Lies

Previous Post

August 14, 2011

Nova's Ordo: 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Next Post

August 15, 2011 A Study Of “On The Character of Men And the Virtuous Life”: Part XXVI.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to Philippians, what should we think about?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The suffering of Christ The needs of others Whatever is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable The word of God day and night