Why Joe Barton's biblical flood comment is so illogical

It's not that Texas congressman Joe Barton cited the Biblical great flood as an example of natural climate change. It's that he misrepresented the arguments of those who say that human activity is changing the climate. 

One hesitates to leap into a story on this, out of concern that the very act of reading the following quote, uttered by Rep. Joe Barton Wednesday during the Subcommittee on Energy and Power hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline, might actually make our readers less informed.

But the Texas Republican is expressing a misperception about climate science that, though ludicrous, is widespread in political debates around global warming. So, it's at least worth correcting. 

Ready? Here's the quote

"I would point out that if you're a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."

OK. Deep breaths. 

It's worth noting that Representative Barton isn't actually saying anything false here. If, as a literal reading of the book of Genesis indicates, the world's tallest mountains were once submerged beneath 15 cubits of floodwater, then, yes, that would most definitely had been an example of climate change. And, if such an event actually occurred, you can't blame fossil fuels.

The preposterousness of Barton's statement stems from his basic fallacy, flagrant even by Congressional standards, in which he refutes an obviously silly claim held by nobody, and then acts as though he had just refuted a not-obviously-silly claim held by almost every climate scientist in the world. 

Among those climate scientists, you won't find a single one who thinks that our planet's climate has remained perfectly stable right up until the dawn of the hydrocarbon economy. Not one.

In fact, natural climate change in the distant past offers the most precise evidence there is for man-made climate change today. That's why climate scientists spend so much time and effort trying to extract ancient gasses trapped in Arctic ice bubbles or in the calcium carbonate shells of fossilized amoebas on the ocean floor, so that they can better understand the relationship between the composition of the atmosphere and the temperature of the globe. 

It turns out that lots of things – not just fossil fuels – can make our planet go warm or cold, or wet or dry. These include volcanic activity, plate tectonics, meteor impacts, the wobble of our planet as it spins on its axis, magnetic activity on the sun, and even the location of our solar system as it circles the Milky Way. 

And ever since the Earth formed from the solar nebular dust some 4.5 billion years ago, it's been a wild ride. Some 700 million years or so ago, for instance, our planet was a giant snowball, covered in ice. Any liquid water on the surface would have existed only as a thin band around the equator. Much later, about 55 million years ago, it was so warm that the Arctic supported deciduous forests. In the past 650,000 years alone, we've had seven cycles of glaciers advancing and retreating, with the last ice age ending about 7,000 years ago, just as we humans were getting down to the business of creating civilizations for ourselves.  

So this isn't really about Rep. Barton's views on the Bible. He could have said, "I would point out that if you're a believer in the paleoclimatological record, one would have to say the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum was an example of climate change, and that certainly wasn't because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy," and it would have been equally irrational. No climate scientist is suggesting that the Earth hasn't experienced dramatic climactic swings in the past, or that trilobites were driving SUVs and using incandescent bulbs. 

What they are saying is that surface temperatures are rising rapidly, and that they have ruled out every known cause except one: human activity.  

Is it possible that they are all wrong? Of course. Science is never settled. But demonstrating that the most climate scientists are wrong about global warming would require refuting their actual arguments, and not knocking down parodies of their arguments. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.