Global Warming: More Than a Hoax

Global Warming: More Than a Hoax

The following are some quotes from those who believe that Global Warming is real and is the most critical problem facing our society.

“Among the steps needed to defend ourselves is quick action to fortify emergency response capabilities worldwide, to shield or relocate vulnerable coastal communities and to prepare for increased migration flows by environmental refugees.Mark Hertsgaard

“According to the grimmest forecasts, extreme global warming could give us a future where erratic and chaotic weather, rising sea levels, and melting snowpack usher in an epic of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions and the political instability that invariably accompanies dwindling resources. ” Atty Robert Kennedy, www.stopglobalwarming.org

“…climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war as countries like China and India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water.

In an article titled, “Global Warming Could Slam Food Supply,” “But computer model projections shown to ABC News by eminent climatologist Steve Schneider at Stanford University, and other calculations from California state water boards, now warn that because of global warming the mountain snowpack so essential to all the food is most likely to be not only melting out too fast in the spring, but diminishing drastically — by as much as 90 percent, according to some computer models — before the end of the century, well within the lifetime of today’s kids. [emphasis mine. correction made based on discussion below]

We should not be surprised at the secular interpretation of climate and its changes. However, what is surprising is that Christians are being duped and duping others on this issue. See Christianity Today’s synopsis of articles which show that many in the evangelical community are promoting this hoax.


This is not new. Many leading Christians get caught in the “Chicken Little” atmosphere. Remember the Y2K crisis? In 1999, many Christian leaders were creating an atmosphere of fear in our churches. Consider Gary North, a leading Presbyterian leader. In his article “Blind Mans Bluff” which this appeared on his site www.y2ksupplies.com, Gary said the following:

“We are heading for a disaster greater than anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague of the mid-14th century.”1

Consider the number of doomsday prophecies of the past decades. Every one of them have been proven false by time…

  • 1970s: Global Cooling. Those who advocated for global cooling made wild predictions that within 30 years, we would all be suffering from starvation because of the lack of crops. Now, thirty-years later, we have Global Warming. Also, there is not starvation. The government is sponsoring bills to help curb obesity.
  • 1970s: Energy Crisis under President Jimmy Carter. It was predicted that we would run out of fossil fuels. This spiked an unnecessary fuel crisis.
  • 1970s: Population Bomb: It was believed that the world’s population world was increasing at such a radical pace that there will not be enough room, food and resources. China adopted the inhumane measures of limiting their society to one child per family. This has so ravaged their nation that now in 2008, they are now reconsidering their practices.
  • 1999: Y2K computer glitch would affect banks, traffic signals, create food shortages and be a catastrophe. Not one incident was recorded.

As believers, what are we to think of doomsday prophecies like global warming and how are we to react to them?
What are We to Think of Doomsday Prophecies, especially Global Warming?

We are to Reject People Who Make Non-Biblical Doomsday Prophecies.

There is an underlying need in sinful human nature to be able to predict the future. It used to be that false prophets were dealt with severely. Today, they win the Nobel Peace prize.

What is behind this need to “prophecy?” Why is it that people want to predict the future? It can be boiled down to one word—pride.

In Job 38:22-30, God challenges Job’s proud spirit by asking a series of rhetorical questions about the weather and climate. With these series of questions, God highlight’s Job’s inability to control the climate. Here are a sampling of the questions:

  • Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? (vv 22,23)
  • What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? (vs 24)
  • Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? (vv. 25-27)
  • Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen? (vv. 28-30)

God made it clear to Job that it is arrogance to believe that man can control the climate. We can look back and see what the climate has done. We can make short term educated guesses to what the weather will do. However, to make predictions such as the Global Warming pundits make is just plain arrogance. They predict that the climate will change up to 11.5 degrees farenheit in the next 30 years. This never happened before and is 11 times greater than any fluctuation in the past 2,000 years. With all of the satellite pictures and meterology equipment at our disposal, weathermen cannot predict with any real accuracy what will happen more than two weeks into the future.

Why do people make claims that the temperature will rise as it never has before? Why are they acting as if they have special knowledge? It is human nature to play God. Only God possesses the knowledge of our future climate.

We are to Reject People Who Ignore Clear Biblical Statements That There Will Be No Doomsday Such as Global Warming.

Let’s contrast what the Global Warming pundits are saying with what the Bible clearly states:

The Global Warming advocates predict the following:

The world’s overall temperatures will increase to as much as 11.5 degrees causing the glaciers to melt, raising sea levels and covering most of our coastal metropolitan cities.

What the Bible says:

Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”

The Global Warming advocates say:

“We are risking the ability of the human race to survive” Climate Change panel chairman

What the Bible says:

Genesis 9:11: “I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

We are to Give Careful Thought Before We Believe in Global Warming

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Pr 14:15)

This proverb describes a “simple” person. “Simple” comes from the Hebrew word which means “open-minded,” “easily persuaded.”

These people believe “anything.” Literally, this is “every word.” They do not discern, but believe every word anybody speaks.

On the contrary, we are to be prudent, sensible people. How does this apply to the Global Warming issue? Here are a few practical suggestions…

  • Prudent people discern what the Global Warming people are saying. Did you notice that the “Global Warming” phrase is now being redefined as “Climate Change?” That is significant. Those who are teaching that there is a warming trend want to be able to cover themselves in case there is a cooling trend by using the phrase “climate change.” This is what propogandists do. They subtly change definitions and terms.
  • Prudent people believe the Bible before they believe the scientific community. The above passages show that we will always have “cold and heat.” We will have cycles of weather.
  • Prudent people do not get excited about the claims that there is going to be a Global Warming catastrophe. They are able to see that politics and money are the driving forces of this issue.
  • Prudent people realize that the Global Warming advocates are repeating the same dogma the Global Cooling and Population Bomb people produced in the 70s.2 However, Global Warming advocates are not willing to make the same mistake their precedessors made in the 70s. It was said that Global Cooling would bring catastrophes within 10 to 30 years. Now that at least 30 years has gone by and there were no catastrophes. Now, the Global Warming community project disasters out to 50 to 100 years. Why? Is it because they will not be here to explain why the catastrophes did not happen?
  • Prudent people will consider the good education coming from Heartland Institute and their Manhattan Declaration.

How Are We to React to Doomsday Prophecies, especially Global Warming?

Perilous times provide Christians an opportunity to express their faith in God.

Assume for a moment that Global Warming were true (as the advocates suggest), what should our response be? Consider Joseph (Genesis 50:19–21) who faced many real crises throughout his life. He was a humble young man who focused on God’s sovereignty. In the midst of real crisis, he told his brothers…

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

God used the evil actions of the brothers to save their own lives and the lives of many others. Joseph looked back on his life and realized that God’s plan incorporates both evil and good.

When calamities come, we can be confident that they are no surprise to God. God, in his wisdom and strength, planned and uses these things to accomplish his purposes. Therefore, when Christians are faced with turmoil, they can be confident that “all things will work together for good!” (Romans 8:28)

As believers, we are not to spread fear over the Global Warming issue. Instead, we should use this as an occasion to share our faith. People around us need stability. They need hope. They need to be saved. Take this global warming issue as an opportunity to spread the Gospel.

Worry is sin.

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?… 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Mt 6:25, 34)

The phrase “do not worry” comes from one Greek word which has a stronger meaning “do not be anxious.” There are plenty of things to be “anxious” over. We have real threats—terrorism, peer pressure, materialism, apathy, etc. From this passage we can draw at least two conclusions…

  1. Anxiety is a lack of trust in God to take care of us. Since He has, and continues to take care of our basic necessities, He will take care of our greater needs.
  2. Anxiety tends to focus on things that are not true (vs 34 cf. Php 4:8). We cannot know the future with any degree of certainty. Only God knows the future. For believers, who can only know the past and the present, we are to focus on godly living in the present. Does that mean that we do not concern ourselves with the future? No. We simply are not to grow anxious over the future that we miss opportunities for godly living here and now.

Conclusion

Global Warming is truly more than a hoax. It is fast becoming a pernicious problem for Christians. It is a battle between faith in science or the Bible. Like many doomsday prophecies, there are underlying motivations. We have identified two—politics and money.

The Global Warming issue provides us an opportunity to exercise our faith. As you meet those who advocate these kinds of doomsday prophecies, take careful, prudent thought. Use it as an occasion to spread the Gospel.3

1 Since his website is no longer in existence, we do have Archive.org 🙂 See the following quote in context here.

2See this insightful article which compares the statements of Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore.

3An article on ways to use Global Warming for spreading the Gospel will be available soon.

Comments

  1. Frightening stuff! So we should all just carry on as before – raping and pillaging the beautiful creation that God has given to our care? Should we stand aside and self-righteously maintain our "God given" over-priviledged lifestyles while millions die from lack of food and clean water, because crops won't grow or homes are washed away by rising tidal systems. May hell burn hotter for those who proclaim such a self-righteous and self-serving perversion of the Gospel!

  2. Hey Ivan, don't include me in your editorial "we." I am not involved in raping and pillaging God's creation and it is difficult to find most people doing so. If there is any doubt that those who are hard advocates of the Global Warming Religion, your preachy comment answers the question clearly. Why anyone would want the damnation of another person simply due to a disagreement over climate is mind-boggling. I will let your comment stand. Not because it should, but because it reveals how "religious" the global warming crowd is becoming.

  3. Regardless of whether global warming is happening or not, it cannot be disputed that we are polluting our water, air and soil at an unprecidented rate. Are we as Gods children being good stewards of what has been put in our care? I think not. And yes, I say we. VERY few are doing all we can in regards to caring for the earth. Myself included.
    I wont debate one way or another about global warming.

  4. Why cannot these things be disputed? Your comment is simply filled with unsubstantiated statements. Where is the evidence that "we" are polluting the water air and soil at an unprecedented rate? Fact is, I, personally have always and continue to be a good steward of the environment. I do not share your guilt. I do not personally know of a single person that is contributing to this pollution. If I saw a friend or acquaintance of mine polluting, I would confront that individual.

    • We push chemical into the ground, into the air, and into the water. one undeniable aspec of pollution is light pollution. If we are destroying the night sky, what else can we destroy. Of course you know someone who pollutes, anyone who drives a car does is putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I cant say that I'm innocent of pollution, but at least i acknowledge that, and i strive to fix it.
      It cant be denied that people ARE starving. If you can name me one country that doest have any hungry or homelss peole, i will take it all back

      • Even the EPA will not say that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is a natural gas. Our trees and plants depend on carbon dioxide. I drive only 50 miles a week and my car has to meet emissions standards that are overbearing.

        Do you have proof that this contributes to so-called global warming? I "blame" the sun.

        • im not bllaming global warming on pollution, im only pointing out that pollution exists. carbon emmisions are boring a hole in the ozone layer. those emissions come from basically anything that uses gasoline. trees and plants do depend on carbon dioxide, and they change it to oxygen, but we are chopping down trees to create shopping malls, and neighborhoods, and cities. the carbon output is far greater than what the plants can take in.
          if you want to blame the sun for global warming, go ahead. the sun heats the planet. But do you know why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system? it has gases in the atmosphere that trap the heat on the planet, gases known as greenhouse gases. Venus probably started out much cooler, and it probably gets hotter every day. that is what peopple theorize causes global warming. you cant deny that both the North Pole and Antartcica are becoming smaller. its ice, which melts. pieces are breaking off because its too thin. its melting

  5. THis is just another example of someone cherry picking scriptures to make a case for whatever they beleive.

  6. Are you kidding…are you kidding. Does science scare the people who wrote this article? The scientific community is not out to get us, and is not out to simply make money for themselves. They are trying to halt our selfish march towards driving our world into the ground.

    But ultimately, this seems to be an issue of people such as those who wrote this article who think that a scientific perspective and a perspective oriented towards God are incompatible. After multiple courses in both environmental studies and divinity school, I have learned and considered the facts for myself, and am disturbed at our destruction of God's creation. Science is not the antithesis to religion, it is a discipline that reveals the mysteries of God, along with the scriptures.

    And as far as scriptural referents here, I don't think God intends to send another doomsday. But God gave us, in our free will, the capacity to do that which may go against God's will. A result of the Fall is selfishness; our nature turned towards ourselves rather than towards God. In our selfishness, we have used the resources of our world as though we were the only person using them. And our planet is the worse for wear.

    I am deeply in love with God and God's teachings and workings in our world and in our lives. And as someone who loves all that God has done, I think we need to recognize the undeniable scientific facts for our destruction of creation.

  7. Actually Warren, if you are going to debate, then give me facts that offset what I gave above.
    This article was a rewrite. It was originally made for the Y2K silliness. Nothing came of that.
    So, I simply used the same theological approach and replaced the Y2K quotes with comparable modern climate quotes.
    What is happening is that this is not a scientific issue, it is simply political.
    1970s: Global Cooling (farce)
    1970s: Prediction that we would run out of fossil fuels. (farce)
    1970s: Population Bomb (farce)
    1999: Y2K computer glitch (false doomsday prophecy)

    So, until you bring scientific data, then don't falsely accuse me that science scares me.

  8. Hi Gary,

    I've been to Iceland. At one glacier I hiked, there was a trail, built in 1930, that started at the base of the glacier. But now this trail is over a mile, away from the glacier's base. One entire mile…

    Recently two German merchant ships traversed through the previously impassable Northeast passage. The passage opened up for the first time this year.

    The science behind gathering temperature data is obviously difficult. There were no thermometers 500 years ago. But that doesn't mean we can't infer warming trends. So, people are doing the best they can with tree rings, and ice cores, etc. But obvious evidence of warmer temperatures exist, such as the Glacier I saw.

    Plus just look at pictures from today, compared to 100 years ago, of any city or town in the world. Every cities and town is ten, twenty or one hundred times larger now. I fly in planes, over forests in the North West and see miles and miles of clear cutting.

    We put a gigantic hole into the ozone layer, by merely using aerosol cans. Isn't that proof that humans can effect the atmosphere. We know the ozone hole exists. We can measure it. People in Australia get bad sunburns now and higher rates of cancer.

    You're saying none of our human activity has any effect?

  9. The raw scientific data behind this claim of "global warming/climate change" has been "lost" and destroyed. The CRU states: "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    The obvious political environment combined with this recent revelation that the raw data is not available for independent scientific verification certainly causes this idea of "global warming/climate change" suspect at best.

  10. The globe is warming. But it still has not returned to the temperatures humanity enjoyed in the middle ages. Grapes were grown in England (still not possible today). The Vikings had thriving settlements on Greenland. Some have recently be rediscovered after the ice retreated to reveal the ruins. Yes the globe did warm the last half of the 20th century, the last 10 years we have been on cooling trend. For those who put their faith in the carbon dioxide green house gas myth, consider that water is the strongest of the green house gases and is found in the atmosphere at levels a 1000 to 10,000 times the concentration. Thank God for global warming, without the earth would be uninhabitable.

  11. Barry Holden says:

    In 1400 the world was flat. It was not a "consensus" of scientists that "knew" that. It was EVERY scientist. It was so obvious to them, that if you disagreed, it was clear that your true motives had to lie elsewhere; like making an attack on God. Why, no one could really question something so obvious unless they had another agenda. Now I know, that was six hundred years ago and what passed for scientists was "laughable". Um, not really. They, by the very nature of science, tackled questions at the outside of their capability. We do the same today. If you think global warming is not outside our abilities to figure, remember it got changed to "global climate change" for a while there IN OUR OWN LIFETIMES. We really should be learning something. And if we think we are really that much "smarter" in the last 600 years, pause and think about this. The Global Warmers are the one's putting billions and billions of years into the evolution equation to get rid of God's handiwork in it. But don't think about big time spans like that. Oh no, we became "geniuses" in …..the last few hundred years. Actually we have simply returned to building the tower of Babel. We are so arrogant and unwilling to admit how little we know. God warned us explicitly about that, and the accompanying lack of humility. And that is the real danger. Recycle till your heart's content, build electric cars and windmills, heck even pass a law and make me buy a moped, do whatever, but don''t fool yourself or lie to others about how smart you are. Your very spirit is jeopardized by that.

  12. It is curious that you defend Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo used his new telescope to support Copernicus's theory that earth rotated around the Sun. Then Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and put under house arrest for statements the church said were "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture". And so history repeats itself. IReligious men the world over condemn science as a blasphemy to God.

    The earth has an extremely stable climate system. Growing up, I remember learning of the Gaia hypotheses, which postulated that earth is almost like an organism in its ability to use feedback loops to maintain a constant, average temperature. Not sure scientists took the theory seriously, but everyone certainly believed the mean, average temperature of earth's atmosphere was uncannily stable, going back thousands of years.

    Only in the 1980s did climate scientists begin to suspect earth was warming. It is very ironic that climate scientist are now being attacked the same way Galileo was, as somehow being in opposition to biblical scripture. Yet, scientists are not predicting that climate change will lead to the apocalypse or to a global flood. It is biblical doomsayers who say this. Scientists believe in God too, and they know only God caused these things and he promised not to repeat it. The vast majority of scientists are unselfish people, who study God's creation for the pure beauty and joy of it. If you want to become rich and wealthy, a life pursing science is a poor choice. Rarely do scientists profit from their efforts; they give their knowledge away freely.

    The tragedy is a warmer climate will make life more difficult for most of us. And it will effect our children the most. Our children will never experience God's creation of nature the way we did. I suppose there are a few places like Greenland, that will benefit. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the effects than most. I live in the American West, where warmer temperatures are already causing problems. Forest fires used to be infrequent, and now they occur every year, and at earlier times. Bark beetles, which are usually killed by cool temperatures, are devastating the forests near my homestead. We have a continual drought. The oceans and rivers near my coast used to be teaming with Salmon, but now most are dead and fishing is banned. My children's children will never eat a wild salmon.

    I'm a lifelong Christian, but the bile and venom coming from my fellow worshipers is sad. God asked Job, Jobs 38:18-21 "Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this… But you ought to know this" Job assumed God was responsible for his tribulations, until he learned it was Satan. And then God asked Job if knows earth as he should. Job is arrogant for confusing Satan for God, and we can learn the same lessons today.

    Scientists, if you ask them, will tell you the weather can fundamentally never be predicted. Chaos theory tells us the behavior of earth's vast atmosphere is so unpredictable that a butterfly flapping in China can cause a hurricane in the Atlantic Gulf. There is no biblical contradiction between climate scientists and God. But, like a big pot of simmering soup, if you turn up the gas, the soup will boil a bit more vigorously. Burning fossil fuels has empowered men to send ton after ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. God asks of us, and we can measure our lands. We can measure the ocean's and the forests and we can measure their ability to absorb carbon dioxide. And we can also measure that large portions of our rain forests are now gone, stripped for furniture and houses, and we can measure that oceans can only absorb a little carbon dioxide each year. Someday God will judge and ask you if you measured the the earth around you.

    Where does oil come from? The black oil comes from the deepest bowels of the earth. Is Satan at work here? I truly don't know. But, I do know God gave us the ability to choose between good and evil. I know even the small choices I make every day are choices between good and evil. I know awareness of my brother's suffering is a choice too. I know scientists are not my enemy, they are my friend.

    I choose to defend, care for and nurture God's creation and my spirit is strong.

  13. I will agree with you on two points:
    –I also choose to defend, care for and nurture God's creation.
    –Scientists cannot predict the weather in two weeks. Why should they be trusted to predict climate models one, ten, hundred years into the future? Especially since they have conveniently "lost" the raw data.

  14. Who told you scientists claim to predict the future? Scientists never claim this.

    I'm defining prediction in an absolute sense, where someone supposes they can calculate the position and velocity of a set of particles at some future time, based on their current position.

    It is well known for the last three hundred years that the classical three-body problem cannot be solved (except by God of course). This is known by mathematicians. So, the future cannot be predicted even using Newtonian mechanics. When you add quantum effects, the future becomes even more unpredictable.

    Also, I doubt it is even possible for the "raw" data to be lost. Weather data comes from thousands of meteorological weather stations all over the world. Any high school science student could gather and collate this data.

    For example here is the raw data from the Arizona Meteorological station. You can download it yourself: http://ag.arizona.edu/AZMET/az-data.htm

  15. Even the calculations these scientists who gave us these climate models for world destruction in the future are making assumptions. It would be pleasant to imagine that scientists have no ability to give their solutions with no prejudice. Those who say 2+2=4 are definitely constrained by rational assumptions. However, those who say "climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts" are certainly making predictions based on data that is skewed by their assumptions.

    You may doubt that the "raw" data was lost. However, I take the CRU at their own word when they say "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

  16. If a newspaper tells you that 2+2=200, would you believe it? Judging the climate debate, by what the media says is a similar fallacy. This posting article makes similar logically inconsistent and fallacious statements. Why would someone present half-truths in Sunday school? The quote you provided "unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes" was made by a journalist, not a scientist. The other quote you submit, about "lost" data was also used by journalists to drum up newspaper sales. It is foolish to judge a scientific debate, based on what journalists write. Controversy sells papers after all.

    Not a single real scientist has made any outlandish predictions of a doomsday. So, as a Christian, I don't see any conflict between climate science and the Bible. My homestead, which has nurtured generations of my family, is threatened by warmer temperatures. I simply want to preserve my homestead and my way of life for my children. Nobody can force anyone to make the right choice. Choice between good and evil is in the brilliance of God's plan.

    Prior to the industrial revolution, the atmosphere had stable levels of carbon dioxide and the other gasses. The only real debate, scientific or otherwise, is whether the human caused doubling of these carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere, will lead to warmer temperatures or not. Skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, doubt the added carbon dioxide will have any effect. Most other climate scientists disagree.

    Lindzen is a global warming skeptic, but I have respect for the man. Unlike the vast majority of skeptic naysayers, who try to spin and win the debate, by using emotional and fallacious buzz words like hoax, lost and doomsday, Lindzen writes an intelligent response.

    His paper is here: http://www.mit.edu/~ysc/index.files/Lindzen&C

    Lindzen earns my respect, but I do disagree with his conclusions.

  17. Actually, I was quoting scientists and found the quote on a scientific website:
    http://www.tececo.com/sustainability.climate_chan… A report released in 2004 by the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessments said that by 2020, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war as countries like China and India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water.

    The second quote was directly from CRU. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    So, whether journalists, Al Gore or I quote from these sources, they are claims by scientists.

    Thanks for the mit.edu link. I will read it.

    About your comment about "presenting half-truths in Sunday school." It is absurd to suggest that this lesson is presenting half-truths when I have clearly interacted with both sides. I have given accurate quotes from scientists. I have also given a biblical framework. Since I have given biblical support for my conclusions, I am wondering why you avoid discussing that aspect.

  18. The TecEco web site is owned by a concrete company… This site is not a credible source of information. Tececo is not managed by scientists, or even associated with scientists; it is a bunch of cement engineers. The site doesn't even contain links to papers published by legitimate scientists.

    • Well, Michael, you said that these quotes were simply from journalists. I gave you a site with engineers who are involved in global climate change fear mongering. You simply discount the engineers. That site quoted from the Pentagon's report. I cannot locate that report.

      I see that you have not considered the CRU quote.

      Either way, these things are being said. So, the point of my article is just that. We are not worry about the fear mongering being spread. Why? Because the Bible clearly states that these things cannot be known by man. Also, the Bible says that climate change is not the means by which the world will ultimately be destroyed.

      What do you think about the Bible?

  19. I believe in the Bible and read it each and every day. It is a great source of hope and grace to me. But I cannot agree that men cannot cause harm to earth or become responsible for catastrophes.

    Genesis 1:26: Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    Men have always had dominion over all the earth. Good blessings have ensued. Humans have dammed rivers and farmed vast valleys, thus feeding billions. At the same time humans have caused immense destruction. The majority of fish populations have declined by 70 to 95% depending on the species, compared to a hundred years ago. Both these choices for good and evil, are cooperative and individual choices. Our choices confirm man's dominion over the earth. Man is no longer in a position to fish the world's seas without any effect.

    Humans can prevent plagues with vaccines or cause plagues, with bio-weapons that could wipe out immense numbers of people. If humans can cause plagues, humans can alter the climate.

    A mere hundred nuclear bombs detonated above cities will trigger fires and soot storms, causing destructive chemical reactions in the stratosphere, leading to severe climate changes. As recently as 2002 both Pakistan and India threatened to use nuclear weapons on each other and came very close to the edge. India frankly said, ""take a bomb or two or more but when we respond there will be no Pakistan." Let us not be fearful, but at the same time a healthy respect for the consequences is a good idea too. I'm still fairly hopeful we won't have a nuclear war.

    As another example, Mexico City exists in a basin at high altitudes, thus trapping atmospheric gases. The cities biggest problems are pollution, a dwindling water supply and poor air quality. Yet another direct example of man's cumulative effect on the atmosphere.

    It is wishful thinking to imagine that something wonderful in the earth will erase the effects of pollution, or over-fishing or nuclear war.

    Currently in the U.S. each person collectively sends 20 tons of C02 per year into the atmosphere. It is your choice to believe this is a hoax, but in that case someone ought to explain where the C02 goes and why it has no effect. Where are the counter-theories of C02's wonderful qualities? If you argue C02 is beneficial, then where is the sprouting rain forests and the expanding sea species? How is all this added C02 benefiting the earth?

    Newton's third law states, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What is the reaction to putting 27 billion tons of C02 into atmosphere each year? God gave man dominion over earth. If you fish, it is your responsibility and choice to explain your impact on the fishery. It is the fisherman's responsibility to fish wisely. The Bible tells us each and everyone must justify our actions and choices and choose wisely.

    Biblically the burden of proof is truly on you, and each of us, to explain why your atmospheric C02 actions have no consequences.

  20. I don't disagree that man can negatively affect his environment. Through out this article, I have challenged those who promote a doomsday theory and the idea that man has the ability to change the climate. CO2 emissions is simply overplayed and the raw data has been lost. God promises that He controls our climate. We can see clearly how God uses the sun to cause cyclical changes. So, please explain how you understand the following:

    Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.”

    Job 38:22-13: "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle?"

  21. My understanding is that with an increased greenhouse effect, the seasons become more pronounced. The summer becomes wetter, and the winter becomes a little drier in the tropics. Thus, the seasonal range of rain, differences between wet and dry seasons, is increased.

    Given the earth's axial tilt, one hemisphere is always pointed towards the sun, during six months of earth's orbit. Thus seasons of cold and warm will always persist. With a drier winter hemisphere, there will still be snow and ice, because less sunlight reaches it.

  22. Be that as it may… then why are you against my article? I think we agree on the fundamentals that we are to be good stewards of creation. I am. You admit that the statements of catastrophe are wrong. You also admit that scientists cannot ultimately predict the climate. So, why do you challenge my points? What is the main point of contention you have?

  23. Your article states, "Prudent people believe the Bible before they believe the scientific community". And you don't stop there. Your articles states, "Global Warming is truly more than a hoax…". You state, ""pop" science (i.e., global warming) are incompatible with religion because they are incompatible with truth".

    Why are you suggesting that people must choose between believing the Bible or science?

    That is my bone of contention.

  24. I don't suggest that people must choose between believing the Bible or science. They are to believe the Bible first, then science. The Bible and true science are absolutely compatible.

    The Global Warming issue is currently being exposed as the fraud it is… Even the last Copenhagen conference was ineffective and spoiled by the recent controversies.

  25. The Bible describes the spiritual truth. Science describes the physical truth. Science is a mirror of God's creation, yet it cannot shed light on our souls. One is not more true than the other and trying to intermingle them is a dangerous exercise.

    Nonetheless, you insist we must look to the Bible for scientific truth, before we look to scientists. Lets proceed then!

    1 Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

    So, the Bible is describing a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. Mathematical science now tells us that for a circle C = 2 * Pi * Radius. Calculated according to the Bible Pi is equal to 3. This is not true. Pi is approximately 3.141593…

    Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

    Through Galileo's science we now know the earth is a sphere, not a circle. We send men into space now, and likewise the heavens are not a canopy either.

    Daniel 4:10-11 "These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."

    This important Biblical vision describes the Earth as a circle, and if something grew high enough it will be visible to every part of earth. Flying transatlantic in a jet plane, from New York to Australia, now informs us the Earth is a sphere and therefore even a very tall tree would not be visible to the people on the opposite side of our planet.

    The bible is filled with scientifically false statements.

    Should we believe the Bible first in each of these cases?

  26. Absolutely…
    You are simply showing your own prejudice against the Bible.
    1Kings 7:23: Since the decimal system was developed only a few hundred years ago, it is absurd to suggest that the writer of 1 Kings should have expressed his measurements using the decimal system. Here we have round figures, not precise expressions of measurements.

    Isaiah 40:22: Is a description of the horizon which is obviously circular based on the fact that it is a sphere. I find no attempt, in this passage, to prove the earth is a sphere vis-a-vis flat disc.

    Daniel 4:10-11: Is a description of a vision using obvious hyperbole. Even today, people use the phrase "ends of the earth" all of the time today. When a person uses this idiom, do you question them about their beliefs of a spherical earth? I hope not.

    When the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth" and says that He did so in 7 days, I believe it. Do you?

  27. Global Warming… Climate Change… now, Climategate… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/C

  28. Kawless says:

    link wouldn’t work for me, but this looks like it:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-
    email-row-admits-data-organised.html

  29. The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper, that publishes articles about UFOs, Alien abductions, etc. Why do you believe or even read that trash? Not a credible source of information… No wonder you guys are so misinformed.

  30. Are you denying that the emails exist? Are you also denying that the climate issue is motivated by politics?

    • Yes, I failed to consider the politics.

      First we have tabloid newspapers, such as the Daily Mail and the Enquirer, who profit on their "hoax" and "conspiracy" theories to sell more newspapers to their paranoid, uneducated readers. Readers who failed out of basic science and chemistry, if they even graduated.

      Next, if climate science encourages governments to take action, oil usage will decline significantly. Worse, people might switch to nuclear power or other clean energies, which will really kill the oil and coal industry. So, we have oil and coal companies, who stand to lose billions when people stop consuming oil, funding opposition groups, lobbyist and pseudo-studies. The role of companies such as ExxonMobile in such funding, is documented in their own records and annual reports: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01

      The result is "climategate" and other invented tabloid stories.

      What is the real political motivation and who wins in all this? The devil must be very happy right now. A hot desert earth is a pleasant place for Satan.

  31. When will earth become hell? Do you have a doomsday date?

    • Hopefully never Barry. I pray that good men and women, will take good actions and make right and good choices, thus doomsday will never come.

      God bless

  32. If we do not employ the practices recommended by the Climate pundits, when will doomsday come?

    • What is "doomsday"? Your question is ambiguous. You don't define "doomsday", so I'll assume you mean the day God judges all humans. Of course, science cannot predict a day of God's judgment, nor any activity of God.

      So, kindly allow me to re-phrase your question. What is the predicted probability the earth's surface atmosphere temperature will rise between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the year 2100? The probability is 90%.

      Do you deny humans have any role in global outcomes? It sounds like you don't believe in the effects of pollution or war or global trade? What is the most important change proposed by climate scientist? The advice is to convert coal and oil power plants to cleaner energies, such as nuclear, solar and bio-fuels. Why is that simple change so threatening to climate science deniers?

      If you ponder this, you'll realize the effort would create jobs as well.

      What is the cost of this? Economists estimate the cost of mitigating climate change at 1 to 3% of world GDP. In other words, you need pay 3% of your gross income or work 3% harder to overcome your personal effect on pollution. Why is this such a hardship for you? In fact it might not be a hardship at all. We have 9% world-wide unemployment. More than 9% of our world population is doing nothing. With a 3% world-wide effort, we could reduce our unemployment to 6%. Communities used to join together and build barns together. Are those days over?

      God bless

  33. 🙂 You are dancing Michael… I quoted four people at the beginning of this lesson. That provided the definition of the problem. The last quote specifically said, "a warning is given that 250 varieties of crops will be dwindled and three-fourths of the water in the Western United States will be melted away soon." When is "soon?" Al Gore has gone on record saying that this will happen in "a few years."

    The government taxes us too much already. I do not want them taking even the smallest percentage of my money for something that has become a laughingstock.

    • Barry, you are a teller of tall tales. You completely fabricated this quote, "a warning is given that 250 varieties of crops will be dwindled and three-fourths of the water in the Western United States will be melted away soon". I went and read the ABC news article myself very carefully. I used grep to look at every occurrence of the word "soon", "melted" and "250". Not a single sentence in the ABC News article even closely resembles your "quote".

      Shame on you. Your article is a "hoax".

      As for your other quotes, you don't give sources so I'm not sure if they are fabricated as well. I can't find them. But it is telling that you didn't quote a single climate scientist, or even scientist. I'm still critical of your reliance on tabloid news.

      How would you feel if someone attacked the Bible without even reading it?

      You are attacking climate science. Can't you take the time to read or quote a climate scientist directly? (And FYI, Al Gore is not a scientist. So don't quote him)

  34. You are right. If I am going to call it a quote then I should use the following quote instead of using my own words:

    "But computer model projections shown to ABC News by eminent climatologist Steve Schneider at Stanford University, and other calculations from California state water boards, now warn that because of global warming the mountain snowpack so essential to all the food is most likely to be not only melting out too fast in the spring, but diminishing drastically — by as much as 90 percent, according to some computer models — before the end of the century, well within the lifetime of today's kids.

    Michael, your point about my use of the word "quote" is taken well and a refinement of the above article is under way. You can debate the semantics of this article, yet, you are committing the fallacy called a "distinction without a difference." It is obviously clear that the climate pundits want us to believe there is a doomsday and it is coming soon.

    Again, I ask… since you believe there will be a doomsday, when will it happen? Why is this such a difficult question?

  35. Michael says:

    Barry, I appreciate your article's ABC News "correction". It is a small, but honorable step in the right direction.

    Your article concludes that "worry is sin". You say, "We cannot know the future with any degree of certainty. Only God knows the future." I'm wondering if you still feel the same after the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The executives of BP and Transocean took numerous precautions, but claimed the accident was inconceivable, even though their deep sea drilling technology is compared to space exploration.

    Of course nobody can predict accidents. An accident is unknowable. But shouldn't we worry just a little bit and take better precautions? Is it really such a terrible sin that climate scientists worry about the future? Does God really want us to zoom along, and just not worry about how our actions might affect things?

    • I understand what you are saying about worry and taking precautions. That is an entirely different ethical level than what has been discussed in the article. The level of worry demonstrated by the quotes is one that causes our focus to man instead of a confidence in God's sovereignty. The Bible speaks of worry in Matthew in terms of one's life expiring by starvation and exposure. That is on the same level of doomsday theories.

      The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while a tragedy, is not at the same level and is not a doomsday situation. Therefore, I view this as a nonsequitor to the argument. It is not the first time a rig toppled and gushed for months. The environment is hardy and will bounce back as it already did in 1980. That oil spill gushed for nearly a year.

      • Michael says:

        Barry authoritatively claims that after a major oil spill, the Gulf will just "bounce back". When was the last time you went scuba diving?

        I hope a biologists can provide some realistic comments here.

  36. Michael says:

    Barry, I appreciate your article's ABC News "correction". It is a small, but honorable step in the right direction.

    Your article concludes that "worry is sin". You say, "We cannot know the future with any degree of certainty. Only God knows the future." I'm wondering if you still feel the same after the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The executives of BP and Transocean took numerous precautions, but claimed the accident was inconceivable, even though their deep sea drilling technology is compared to space exploration.

    Of course nobody can predict accidents. An accident is unknowable. But shouldn't we worry just a little bit and take better precautions? Is it really such a terrible sin that climate scientists worry about the future? Does God really want us to zoom along, and just not worry about how our actions might affect things?

  37. http://alaska.fws.gov/media/unalaska/Oil%20Spill%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

    Is a good article on the varied effects of oil spills. This article shows that oil spills certainly do not compare to the presumed doomsday scenarios suggested by the global warming pundits.

  38. Michael says:

    Why do we have to drill for oil today, right now, immediately? The oil will still be there twenty years from now, when the technology is cleaner, better and safer. Why are we in such a hurry?

  39. Why pay more for our oil by importing it? Why pay countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico who have shown disdain for America? I am not against clean, better and safer technology. Along with those technologies come the demand for infrastructure that we currently do not have. If our cars could be hydro-powered, that would be awesome! However, attempts to do so have been difficult because the infrastructure is simply not in place.

    We can drill safely. Especially if we are allowed to do so inland.

  40. Michael says:

    Today on CNN, BP's chief executive Tony Hayward discussing the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, stated "This is clearly an environmental catastrophe, there is no two ways about it."

  41. I agree… the oil spill is catastrophic! It is devastating the marshes of Louisiana. Too bad there is more finger-pointing going on on both sides (oil company and Obama administration).

  42. Michael says:

    Your article states: "It was predicted that we would run out of fossil fuels. This spiked an unnecessary fuel crisis." Yes, technically you are correct, a crisis was unnecessary, in a strict legalistic sense. And today, 30 years later, we obtain 30% of our oil from wells deep in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet, simple changes like insulated windows during winter would cut total U.S. energy use by 10%. Neither Obama or BP is responsible, the finger-pointing really should point at ourselves. These photographs tell a much stronger story than I can ever say with words:
    http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/caught_i

    It is fair to ask what role can religion and the Bible play during these man-made disasters? Is this disaster just another opportunity to spread the Gospel, as your article suggests? Or does the Bible provide a deeper insight and guidance into our own actions and relationship with God's creation?

  43. Michael, why suggest that we are the ones responsible? Government bureaucracy, oil company mismanagement and the continued bureaucratic posturing continues to allow the oil to spill. I'm not going to feel a false guilt as if I am responsible. I am ALL for drilling for oil safely. Let's get back to drilling on land and in shallow waters where spills/leaks like this can be better managed when they occur.

    While I never said it was "just" an opportunity for the Gospel, it certainly is an opportunity for the Gospel. There are plenty of things to understand from this: 1) We are to hope in God, not our own selves. 2) A "doomsday" perspective fails to understand that this is an opportunity to be holy. These are things ALSO addressed above.

    You mention that the Bible provides a deeper insight… Would you mind sharing your thoughts since I have already done so?

  44. RobbieP says:

    Doesnt your inclusion of the whole Y2K scenario kind of counter your argument here?

    • In what way does Y2K counter the argument? Y2K was overblown as a doomsday scenario. Nothing happened.

      • Isn't Robbie's point fairly obvious?

        Programmers knew that a date overflow bug in software will cause glitches, when the rollover occurs from 99 to 00. In 1999 banks, ships, electrical grids and all manner of complicated systems relied on software. So a lot of bugs, all happening on the same day and same hour would be a disaster.

        Yet everyone heeded the warning. Nobody wrote News of the World articles claiming Y2K was a conspiracy hoax. Instead all the world's programmers worked diligently, together and without blame. The problems were fixed and disaster was averted.

        The same thing happened today in LA. The mayor, officials and news all predicted Carmageddon when the 405 freeway was shutdown. The purpose of the warning was to prevent freeway gridlock. Everyone heeded the news and stayed off the roads. Disaster was averted.

  45. Basic sciene. The ozone does not protects us against UV rays. UV rays clashes with oxygen. This reaction disperses the light and ozone is produced. Basically, the reaction provides protection and ozone is the result of the reaction.

  46. CFC’s is supposedly breaking down Ozone, but how? CFC’s are saturated! I calculated the molecular mass of O2 which is 32 and CFC which is 137.5. How does CFC’s rise above O2 and break down the ozone?

  47. Finally, a voice of reason. Don't try and cover things up, that is not what the bible teaches! Pat Robertson states "“You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

    “If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/arc

    • As a Christian, shouldn't our approach be: "“If you fight the BIBLE, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,"?

      We can debate the number of years. However, dinosaurs ARE WITHIN the time of the Bible. It clearly states: " And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24-25.

      • The point is that dinosaurs existed, then went extinct 65 million years ago, well before the existence of people. In other words, they existed prior to the period when the Bible was written. This point should be plainly obvious since dinosaurs are never mentioned in the Bible. That and the fact that dinosaur fossils are found in rock layers corresponding to the Jurrasic era. Dinosaur fossils are not found co-located together with more recent mammal fossils.

        • So, when the Bible says " “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

          Isn't this the biblical statement on the origin of "living creatures" or "wild animals?"

Speak Your Mind

*