Future Nobel Prize winner Rush Limbaugh, spent much of his Friday program discussing global warming. He spent a lot of time reviewing the lack of science involved in the debate, which makes me happy, but his second hour explaining how the “god of creation” wouldn’t destroy the planet through global warming did not make me happy. I return to my original Secular Conservative premise: conservatism stands on its own; argue with reason and logic and leave the religious language out of the debate.

Before I get into some quotes from Rush’s program, let me be clear that I am not arguing for global warming; I’m arguing against Rush’s invocation of God in the global warming debate.

Rush Limbaugh: “I’m saying as a believer in a loving God and the God of creation that there is a complexity to all this that makes it work that we cannot understand, that we cannot really control, that we cannot destroy, and that we really can’t alter in its massive complexity… I believe in the God of creation and I believe as such [that] we’re insignificant in all this. I am, just as a human being, offended by the notion that the automobile I drive and the way I air condition my home and the way I barbeque outside… I refuse to believe that a loving god creates creatures able to do everything we are able to do, to solve various problems… that that is going to lead to an apocalypse.”

Why does this argument have to depend on a god of creation? In the scientific view, where we are created by natural processes, a Big Bang, and millions of years of evolution, there is the same level of complexity (some might even argue that there is more complexity in the evolutionary view), so the argument still holds up. I could restate this as, “Knowing the size and complexity of the natural world, we cannot understand or control or destroy or alter its massive complexity. I’m offended by the notion that my automobile or my air conditioner can have any impact on a world that is as old and complex as ours is.” There’s no need to invoke the God of creation to argue that man is insignificant in affecting an old, complex planet.

Rush Limbaugh: “In the context of my belief that God is a loving god and created all that is for beautiful and wonderful reasons, and that we are turning this creation into what it’s never been before in terms of the quality of human life, I don’t see how that can lead to destruction of what God created.”

This argument is illogical on its face. Rush is saying that the sheer beauty of creation means that it can’t be destroyed. Naturally beautiful things can be destroyed; they are destroyed every day. Beauty is not an argument against global warming, so God’s creation of beauty is not very convincing.

Rush Limbaugh: “But at the same time, I don’t believe that that loving God would create a being like me or you who could conceive of such a place as paradise or heaven or whatever you want to call it if it weren’t true. That would be an ultimate act of cruelty.”

So the ability to conceive of such a place means it must exist? Otherwise God isn’t loving? I find this one particularly silly. Apparently Rush is saying that, because God created us with the ability to conceive of heaven, heaven must exist. I’m not sure how this relates to global warming; it’s probably just an extension of his earlier argument for beauty.

How do we expect to convince people that conservatism is better when we make arguments like these?  This is my call to all prominent conservatives:

Advocate conservatism using reason and logic because you will reach and convince a wider audience. It’s not necessary to invoke a higher authority when you discuss conservatism.  It can actually hurt the cause.

Here is my summary of the global warming debate:

• Is global warming occurring? Maybe, but I don’t know. I’ve heard that the earth’s average temperature has been rising ever since the last ice age, so I’m open to the idea.
• Is mankind causing global warming? No, we’re simply not that much of a factor. Temperatures have been rising since before we developed the gasoline engine; a single volcanic eruption emits more toxins into the air than all of our automobiles; and the ecosystem knows how to clean and repair itself – just look at the shrinking ozone hole.
• Is global warming bad? No, because it creates more livable area on the planet. Those in the north should love the idea of global warming because it will allow them to make use of land in those areas where crops were planted many centuries ago.

-tsc