What If Our Climate Change Critique Leads People To Disrespect Us?

The fifth and final major topic we are addressing in this series comes down to this question: "How can we successfully interact with and win a world over to Christianity, if we are not respected intellectually by that world?"

There is at least a five-part response.

To begin, as we saw in our reasons for addressing the issue of climate change, at stake is the truth of the biblical/Christian worldview itself, as well as the physical and eternal well-being of humans in our world.  To quote Caleb Rossiter of the CO₂ Coalition: “We are trying to save the people of the planet from the people ‘saving the plant.’”[1] In other words, what is at stake is very important. Thus, we should be motivated to speak truth no matter the outcome.  

Additionally, whenever followers of the true God seek to communicate his truth (even his good news) to a lost world, often the result is a form of persecution that includes mocking and scorn. We see this even in the Old Testament. For example, when Judah’s King Hezekiah was instituting reforms and calling people back to God by establishing the celebration of Passover again (see 2 Chronicles 30:1-5), he sent couriers or runners throughout the land to announce the good news. The response of people is seen in 2 Chronicles 30:10 (NLT): “The runners went from town to town throughout Ephraim and Manasseh and as far as the territory of Zebulun. But most of the people just laughed at the runners and made fun of them.”

This is the same kind of response that happens to heralds of the good news of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself affirmed this when he taught, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19). Paul also reiterated this when he wrote: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” (2 Tim. 3:12).

We should not be surprised at push back, scorn, or even all-out persecution.

What is more, we must understand that communicating the truth of the Bible and the gospel are the only way that people can see their need for God’s salvation in Jesus Christ and receive that free gift (Rom. 10:13-17). Such communication is enhanced by affirming the biblical worldview, which is what we are doing in the refutation of climate change. The rest of the story for the runners in 2 Chronicles 30 is that God used them to bring revival to Judah as he miraculously changed hearts after interacting with the message (see 2 Chron. 30:11-12ff.). The same has been true of the Church of Jesus Christ as she has faithfully and boldly given her testimony to Christ before the world (Rev. 12:11).

Something else that is important to remember is that Jesus Christ promised happiness to those who are part of his kingdom, who follow him, and who are willing to give testimony to him, even if it means persecution (Mt. 5:10-12).

Finally, we can remember that Jesus has promised his ongoing presence with his followers as they engage in proclaiming him and teaching his truth (cf. Mt. 28:19-20). We therefore can be strong in him and in the strength that comes from his might and his very armor that he has purchased for and given to us to protect us from the evil one and from his minions who seek to stop and hurt us (Eph. 6:10-18). The result is that even though many are the afflictions of the righteous (including scorn, ridicule, and even death in some cases), the Lord will ultimately deliver us out of them all (Ps. 34:19) through resurrection (1 Cor. 15; Rev. 21:3-7).

Therefore, as the Apostle Peter has exhorted us (1 Peter 4:16): “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.”

Joyfully Following Christ In Proclaiming Truth With You,

Tom

---

[1] Rossiter, a climate statistician, made this comment during a congressional hearing on climate change. This was cited in “Quotables,” in World, May 25, 2019: 16.

Reasons Why Addressing Climate Change Doctrine Is So Important To Christians

Some may think that we have spent far too much time in this blog this week talking about climate change. Christians might assume it just doesn’t matter all that much what a person believes about this. Since this is the case, I want to introduce nine reasons why this issue is so important.

It impacts our view of God

The Bible tells us that creation reveals God’s glory (Psalm 19:1) and this includes his eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20). In other words, as we look at how creation functions and how man, created in God’s image, is able to use its resources in ingenious ways to solve problems and to help humans flourish more (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-7), we should see God’s greatness and wisdom in how he has created and how he provides for humans, as well as in the strong resilient world he created (Gen. 8:22).

Yet, if current climate change doctrine is correct, this would call into question what we should glean about God from creation, and so it calls into question our very view of God.

It impacts our view of Scripture 
This is related to our first reason. Current climate change doctrine not only calls into question the biblical view of God, it potentially calls into question key assertions Scripture makes. For example: Humans are to reflect God’s glory by bringing order into the world and using its resources (including fossil fuels) to help humans flourish (Gen. 1:26-28; Gen. 8:5-7); God has promised that creation will continue to function in its basic weather cycles throughout this current age and until such a time as Christ returns and God restores creation (Gen. 8:22; 2 Peter 3:10-13; Rev. 21:3-7); God has given his creation to humans as something good (1 Tim. 4:4), including carbon fuels, and for his enjoyment (1 Tim. 6:17). If all these realities are not true, then we not only doubt the veracity of God’s Word, but God himself.

Not only do the first two reasons hang together and both address our trust in God, they prepare us for the third reason.

It Has Impact Upon Our View Of The Bible’s Relevance For Today 
There are few things that have captured the attention of the media and our culture as much as current climate change doctrine. If we are silent on this issue, it gives the impression that the Bible simply has nothing to say about key issues of our day.

What is more, when people discover what the Bible reveals about God’s creation and how this refutes current cultural doctrine, it not only can bring comfort, but also wisdom to how we can care for the creation around us at the same time we care for other people in a stout way. Such a biblical approach also leads us to give God thanks and praise for his resources and goodness. Such a biblical approach can also encourage Christians to stand solid on Scripture and to trust in what it teaches.

It Impacts Pre-Evangelism 
This fourth reason is related to the third. If we can demonstrate the trustworthiness of Scripture and the biblical worldview, not only does it encourage Christians to trust in Scripture, it also can encourage non-Christians to see the validity of the biblical worldview. Therefore, rather than seeing it as irrelevant at best or dangerous at worst, this can serve as pre-evangelism. In other words, it can prepare hearts to be introduced to the fuller truth about this God who has created such an amazing world, gifted us with such great resources, and revealed such helpful wisdom in his Word for how to care for it. Maybe we should listen to what God has revealed in the Scriptures!

It Impacts Our Gratitude To God
We are to praise and thank God for his goodness and provision in creation (Psalms 92:1-4; 100; Col. 4:2; 1 Thes. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:4; 6:17; James 1:17). Yet, current climate change doctrine can move us away from an appreciation for God’s wisdom and provision in creation to an opposite reaction, namely that something God provided in creation (carbon fuels developed through man’s ingenuity) is innately bad and destructive. Such a movement of heart is at the core of sin. Consider what Paul reveals about the movement away from the worship and honoring of God for what we know of him through creation (Rom. 1:21-23): “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (emphasis added)

Current climate change doctrine moves us away from gratitude for and praise of God to gratitude for and praise of the creation itself and a repudiation of aspects of that creation God has given for human benefit and his glory!

It Impacts Our View Of The Creation Mandate[1]
Current climate change doctrine implies that creation is better off in its pristine, untouched form, that a resource (carbon fuels) discovered and developed from within creation is more of a poison than a gift, and that humanity’s very development of that resource has been a bad thing for the world. Such thinking can easily lead us to call into question the first divine command recorded in the Bible, the creation mandate, in which God tells humans (Gen. 1:28): “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over [it]….” As we demonstrated in an earlier blog post, this involves bringing order to the world and working in it, along with its resources, to help humans and all of creation flourish.

Without realizing it, inventors, researchers, and countless others through history have obeyed God’s command here and demonstrated that God has gifted humans, created in his image, with the ingenuity to discover and invent and accomplish incredible feats throughout history.[2]

One of the most impactful areas of discovery and development among humans has to do with carbon fuels. Columnist Andre Seu Peterson captured this when she wrote the following:

Consider fossil fuels. What comes to mind by that phrase? Filth? Pollution? Fossil fuels are caches of living things long dead that God, in His thoughtfulness, saved for us till we should learn to tap their benefit for man…. The fossil fuel industry needs better PR. It supplies 80 percent of the world’s power, and makes life bearable and climate-proofed on this rock for large swaths of humanity, yet seems embarrassed about it. 

…no other energy source has figured out how to generate electricity, heating, and transportation as cheaply and abundantly and on a worldwide scale. Far from causing climate-related deaths, the fossil fuel industry has protected us from climate-related deaths. It is the industry that powers all other industries. It turned black liquid decay into prosperity for 4 billion people. We need more of it, not less of it, to reach the other 3 billion.[3]

Peterson then adds:

Look around your room. Most things in it were made with hydrocarbons (fossil fuels)— your pen, the ink on your paper, the buttons on your shirt, your hair products, all coatings on furniture, the fertilizer that grew your clothes, the trucks that brought them to market, your air conditioner or heater. There is no wind or solar way to replace a combine harvester. Outlaw the fossil fuel industry, and you and I will not be inconvenienced: We will be dead.

Climate statistician Caleb Rossiter of the CO₂ Coalition succinctly made the same point during a congressional hearing on climate change when he argued that: “Fossil fuels have contributed to advances in human health.”[4]

If the most extreme proponents of current climate change doctrine have their way, human flourishing through the outcomes of carbon fuels would cease and most likely we would turn the world backward and hurt the poor, making them even more susceptible to extreme weather conditions that are part of living in this fallen world. Christians have the truth and wisdom to counter this and to encourage the continued ordering and bettering of the world for the benefit of fellow humans and for God’s glory.

It Impacts Our View Of Political Candidates
If the most extreme form of current climate change doctrine were accepted, namely that we face the destruction of climate and the planet as we now know it within the next decade or so, it would then lead some to conclude things such as the following:  “I know this candidate is not pro-life and I know they have a distorted view of economics and how to help people flourish, but they are strong on climate change. Therefore, I have to vote for them so we can save the planet!  Once this is done, then we can be concerned about these other issues.”

Over the past generation so many have been taught that we are destroying the environment, there is little (if anything) that is more important to them, so much so they will overlook other important issues.

If we believe our leaders’ worldview and philosophy matter, then we must refute current climate change doctrine!

It Impacts Our Freedom
The most extreme proponents of current climate change doctrine are espousing such extreme measures to be forced upon mankind that they would remove much human freedom.[5]

Wayne Grudem rightly explains:

Regulating people’s use of energy is an incredibly effective way of increasing the control of central governments over people’s lives. If the government can dictate how far you drive your car, how much you heat or cool your home, how often you use electric lights, computers, or TVs, how much energy your factory can use, and how much jet fuel you can have to fly an airplane, then it can control most of the society.[6]

As such, those who believe that government should be larger and control more will flock to the radical climate change doctrines. What is more, those committed to radical climate change doctrines will also be drawn to big government or centralized approaches.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said that in his opinion the alarm about global warming and the campaign to reduce carbon dioxide provide the greatest threat to human liberty that has come to the earth since communism. He wrote in the Financial Times that “global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth verses propaganda problem.” He continued:[7]

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obligated to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous [progress] of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.  (Grudem, emphasis added)

It Impacts The Poor
Our ninth and final reason this is an important issue to take up is simply this, if the proponents of the doctrine have their way, it would drastically and negatively impact the poor around the world. Some climate change proponents assert that the poor will be the most hurt by climate change and that climate change will “bring more poverty into the world,”[8] if extreme measures are not taken. However, the opposite is true. If climate-change-doctrine-radical-changes are adopted, more people will be in poverty and those already in poverty will be hurt the most.[9]

Affordable energy leads to more efficient production of food, as well as a better handling of severe temperature and environmental situations (e.g. not having enough water). To reduce the use of carbon dioxide, especially in light of the negligible impact it most likely would have on temperatures should alarm all, but especially those who are truly concerned about the world’s poor. What is more, to divert funds away from energy and also from fighting HIV/AIDS, hunger, and malaria to combating so-called climate change will hurt the poor.[10]

The Cornwall Alliance has also rightly asserted that energy is an important part of bringing the poor out of poverty and so to diminish use of carbon fuels would actually hurt that group of people: “The world’s poor are much better served by enhancing their wealth through economic development than by whatever minute reductions might be achieved in future global warming by reducing CO₂ emissions.”[11]

In light of all the evidence we have set forth in these blog posts, the most prudent response to help the poor (including giving them help to deal with extreme weather conditions and natural catastrophes) is not to try (almost certainly unsuccessfully and at enormous cost) to prevent or reduce whatever slight warming might really occur. “It is instead to prepare to adapt by fostering means that will effectively protect humanity–especially the poor–not only from whatever harms might be anticipated from global warming but also from harms that might be fostered by other types of catastrophes, natural or manmade.”[12]

The Cornwall Alliance also helpfully adds:

A thought experiment might help make our point clearer. Imagine that your city were struck by a heat wave like the one that killed 700 in Chicago in 1995. Would you be more likely to survive comfortably and safely if you were wealthy, or if you were poor? If the answer is as obvious as we believe it is, what moral basis can there be for adopting an anti-global warming policy that reduces economic development for the world’s poor and thus prolongs the time during which they cannot afford to protect themselves from heat–or any other risk?[13]

Joyfully Praising God With You For His Amazing Creation,

Tom

---

[1] Also called the Cultural Mandate.

[2] Andree Seu Peterson, “Gifts For Life: Fossil Fuels Have Brought Prosperity To Billions,” in Voices, in World, May 25, 2019: 67, makes this very point. She also adds: “…God meant for earth to bear a human footprint” rather than remaining in its pristine, untouched form.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Cited in “Quotables,” in World, May 25, 2019: 16.

[5] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1161.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The previous sentence and the following quote are both taken from Vaclav Klaus, “Freedom, Not Climate, At Risk, Financial Times (June 13, 2007), cited in Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1162.

[8] Alejandra Rueda-Zarate, in Mary Robinson, “Losing Ground,” The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 38.

[9] This is seen in the example of a Rotarian, Marshall Saunders, the man who is behind the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a man impacted by the highly problematic film by Al Gore, “An Inconvenient Truth.” He is advocating carbon fees which would ultimately hurt business and eventually hurt the poor economically. See Geoffrey Johnson, “Friendly Persuasion,” in The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 42-46.

[10] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1162.

[11] The Cornwall Alliance, “A Renewed Call To Truth, Prudence, And Protection Of The Poor: An Evangelical Examination Of The Theology, Science, And Economics Of Global Warming.”  

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

How We Should Approach Climate Change And The Call To Reduce Radically Our Use of Carbon Fuels, Part 3

As we discovered in the previous post, the Bible’s teaching should lead the Christian to question extreme climate change doctrine. Additionally, as we saw in our first post, looking at how global warming actually works to see if there is truly evidence for such doctrine, also leads us to question much current climate change doctrine.  What we have discovered in these first two post also should lead us to ask the question, “Is there other scientific evidence that calls into question the dire climate change predictions?” The answer is, “Yes.” We now turn to that body of evidence, which also forms our third major topic in this week's series.

3. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LEADS US TO DOUBT THE DIRE CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS.

There are five areas of evidence we will examine.

Scientific Opinion Is Divided About The Danger Of Global Warming: There Is No Consensus
Though much effort has been put into suggesting there is a scientific consensus on the danger of global warming, there really is no consensus. After all, many scientists reject the dire predictions.

For example, A U.S. Senate panel put together a list of over 700 scientists who have rejected in total or part the global warming hypothesis and have stated this in their publications.[1] Additionally, over 31,000 degreed scientists (9,000 with PhDs) have signed the “Global Warming Petition, which asserts: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”[2]

Other sources have revealed that many well-known scientists, even Nobel Prize winners, reject the dire predictions of climate change doctrine. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Ivar Giaver, a 1973 physics Nobel Laureate…resigned last week from the American Physical Society in protest over the group’s insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is ‘incontrovertible.’”[3] That same article reveals that Giaver asserts the very small increase in average temperature over the past 150 years shows temperatures have been remarkably stable and beneficial for human health. It also went on to say that Giaver, “Follows in the footsteps of University of California at Santa Barbara Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, a former APS fellow who resigned in 2010, calling global warming ‘the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”[4]

Finally, an important resource revealing scientists who disagree about the danger of man-caused global warming is Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, And Fraud (Minneapolis: Richard Vigilante Books, 2008). On pages 207-8 of that work he shows that many of the world’s top experts in their fields reject the dire climate changes predictions that have been made so popular in the media.[5]

The Scientific Literature Is Divided On The Dire Climate Change Predictions
The second area of evidence is closely related to the first. Since there is no true consensus on global warming among scientists and these doubting scientists have published much on the topic, we also must realize there is also a division on the topic in their writings.

Here I will provide three examples.

To begin, many studies conclude there are natural, non-human causes to current changes in global temperatures (e.g. fluctuations in solar output, changes in cloud forcing, and precipitation microphysics). What is more, other studies have found it most likely that rising CO₂ is an effect of warming, not a cause. Recently “sixty topic-qualified scientists asserted that ‘global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural noise,’ and that ‘observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.’”[6]

There are several instances of scientists expressing to their government leaders skepticism toward current climate change doctrine. For example, on April 6, 2006 sixty well-qualified scientists working in the field of climate change sent an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. It said the following: “Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.” The scientists went on to reject the vision of catastrophic human-induced global warming and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Soon after this a group of leading New Zealand climatologists and meteorologists (all who were skeptical of catastrophic human-induced global warming) formed The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to help correct poor science and unfounded conclusions being espoused about global warming. Finally, on April 20, 2006, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a radio program titled, “Overselling Climate Change.” In it many scientists, including those who believe global warming is a serious problem, decried exaggerated claims about global warming that undermine confidence in science.[7]

My third example provides a sample of a more specific accusation raised by some proponents of current climate change doctrine, namely that global warming is threatening the habitats of some birds. James J. S. Johnson, a scholar with the Institute For Creation Research, deals with the migration of tricolored herons from Louisiana to the Atlantic coast in ICR’s monthly periodical.[8] As is the case with many things happening among animals around the world, climate change attributed to human use of fossil fuels has been named as the culprit.[9]  Yet, Johnson convincingly asserts that not only is this bird the second most numerous long-legged wader bird in the United States, but these herons previously found habitat in the very region to which they have moved. So, not only is the bird not in danger, but it is simply moving to a habitat that has been previously good for it. The reason for sharing this is to demonstrate that there is often a “knee-jerk” reaction to any change in the world to animals or plant life, a rush-to-judgment, that it is an illustration of the devastating effects of climate change. Yet, the reality is that there may very well be other explanations.

So, our three examples show, at the very least there is no consensus among scientists when it comes to current climate change doctrine. There should be adequate motivation at the very least for us to reevaluate all the evidence again.

Glaciers Are Not Melting And Sea Levels Rising As Usually Argued
This is the third area of evidence. We are fed a steady diet of messages that human-caused global warming is leading to melting glaciers, endangered polar bears, and rising sea levels. How should we view these claims? “If we did see glaciers melting and sea levels rising, these might well be due to other factors, such as variations in sun activity, variations in ocean currents, and ordinary long-term weather cycles, and not due to changes in carbon dioxide levels…. However, none of the claimed disasters is well supported by evidence.”[10]

Regarding glaciers and ice caps, consider the following:

• “Glaciers have been shrinking slowly since the end of the last ice age…[a period of time] during more than 99 percent of which time people did not emit enough greenhouse gas to have any effect on the global average temperature. So the mere fact of their shrinking is nothing new and is not evidence of human-induced warming. During [this time period] ‘glaciers around the world have fluctuated broadly in concert with changing climate, at times shrinking to positions and volumes smaller than today,’ and ‘mountain glaciers…show a wide variety of responses to local climate variation, and do not respond to global temperature change in a simple, uniform way. Tropical mountain glaciers in both South America and Africa have retreated in the past 100 years because of reduced precipitation and increased solar radiation…[and] the data on global glacial history and ice mass balance do not support the claims made by the IPCC that CO₂ emissions are causing most glaciers today to retreat and melt.’”[11] 

• “As for ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic, short-term observations do not prove much of anything. Ice melts in warmer seasons and freezes in cooler seasons every year, and there are warmer years and colder years, so a video of a polar bear jumping off melting Arctic ice does not prove a long-term trend. Polar bears have jumped off the ice and caught fish for centuries. In addition, it is now clear that, far from dwindling, polar bear populations have grown during the period of alleged man-made global warming and shrinking Arctic sea ice.”[12] 

• “Global sea-ice cover remains similar in area to that at the start of satellite observations in 1979, with ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean since then being offset by growth around Antarctica. Arctic sea ice has decreased, while Antarctic sea ice has expanded.”[13] 

• There may be evidence that glaciers expand and diminish for reasons unrelated to human-caused global warming. “Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, formerly one of the fastest shrinking glaciers on earth, is suddenly growing again—and many climate scientists are stunned. ‘At first we didn’t believe it,’ Ala Khazendar, a NASA researcher who co-authored a new study on the glacier, said in a statement. … skeptics of man-made climate change say the glacial surprise is further evidence that the dire predictions of global warming alarmists aren’t reliable. …John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama…[said] that glacial regions are very complex and thus predictions are often unreliable. Glaciers come and go: ‘It’s the natural variability of the system.’”[14]

Let’s turn briefly to sea levels:

• Though Al Gore, in his book Earth In The Balance has claimed that sea levels are rising—so much so that people in a low-lying Pacific island nation of Tuvalu had to abandon their homes, “tide gauge records show that sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter half of the 20th century. Altimetry data from the Topex-Poseidon satellite shows that Tuvalu sea levels fell even during the 1990’s.”[15]  

• Although Al Gore, in the film “An Inconvenient Truth,” claimed that melting ice from West Antarctica and Greenland would cause a 20-foot increase in sea levels worldwide (he didn’t specify when this would happen, but implied immediate changes to prevent this need to take place), “the IPCC, even with its questionable assumption of high warming from rising greenhouse gases, estimated instead that melt from those two locations would add only about 2.5 inches…to sea levels over the next 100 years.”  “In fact, sea levels…rose only about 6.3 inches in the entire 20th century—and the rate of increase declined in the latter half of the century.”[16] 

Climate Change Is Not Impacting The Frequency And Number Of Weather-Related Catastrophes

When it comes to this fourth area of evidence, we are well-served by discovering there is no evidence that human-caused global warming is leading to weather-related catastrophes—including their number or intensity. In fact, we may see just the opposite.

Many claim that hurricane frequency and strength have risen with recent global warming. For example, in a recent interview Rotary International president, Barry Rassin, mentions this theory as proof of climate change and the need to take radical steps: “I don’t make judgments. I just say the facts, that things are changing: 2017 was a devastating year for hurricanes. These changes are happening. Call it what you want, but we need to look at the environment and we need to talk about it.”[17] Yet, this claim, that hurricane frequency and strength have risen with global warming, “Not only has been refuted empirically but also abandoned by the scientist who most strongly promoted it.”[18] 

Jamie Dean highlights that many accused climate change (and by implication climate change deniers who haven’t gotten on board) for the destruction and deaths of August 2017 Hurricane Harvey that hit Houston and surrounding areas so hard. Some even called for prosecuting such deniers.[19] Dean then writes:

Indeed, even as Harvey made landfall in August, officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) wrote, “It is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.” NOAA wasn’t denying the earth is warming: It was simply reporting that scientific data don’t support the notion that global warming caused the severe storms we’ve seen this hurricane season. It’s an important distinction in a contentious debate: It’s possible to acknowledge the climate is changing without being convinced the results would be catastrophic or that our response should be apocalyptic.[20]

Dean then continued:

Neil Frank knows the history of storms. He’s watched them professionally for more than half a century. The retired meteorologist worked at the National Hurricane Center in Florida for 25 years and served as director of the center from 1974 to 1987. After moving to Texas, he worked as a meteorologist in Houston until his retirement in 2008. These days, he’s a fellow for the Cornwall Alliance—a network of Christian scholars and scientists—and he still gets calls from news stations when big hurricanes roll in. Frank watched Harvey’s deluge safely from his perch at home about 40 miles outside of Houston.

When Frank, 86, compares Harvey and Irma to past hurricanes, he rattles off storms and corresponding years with ease. He likes to start with 1886: That’s the most active hurricane season on record in the United States, according to NOAA, with seven hurricanes making landfall, including one that wiped out Indianola, Texas. In 1893, another hurricane hit Louisiana, killing as many as 2,000 people. In 1900, an infamous Category 4 hurricane swamped Galveston, Texas, and killed at least 6,000 people in the booming coastal town. The year 1935 brought a Category 5 hurricane to the Florida Keys, knocking a train of departing workers off a set of railroad tracks. During the same year, another storm caused massive flooding in Houston, submerging swaths of downtown and closing the city’s port for eight months. Frank, who doesn’t think data shows global warming is making hurricanes more frequent or fierce, notes that all these storms struck before the major emissions of carbon dioxide that some modern scientists say contribute to similar storms today: “There were no SUVs in 1935.”[21]

Dean adds:

Roger Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, notes that since 1970, the United States has seen only four hurricanes ranked Category 4 or 5 make landfall. In the 47 years before that, he says, the country endured 14 such storms. Given the history, he warns against using Harvey and Irma as a form of “single-issue myopia” to make the case for drastic measures toward combating climate change.[22]

Finally, we should briefly state that droughts and floods are not increasing in frequency or intensity,  but even if they were, this would not by itself prove the cause is due to increases in carbon dioxide (and so it would not prove it is human-caused).[23]

There Are Benefits That Come From Increased Carbon Dioxide In The Atmosphere.
Here is the fifth and final kind of scientific evidence we will consider.

Wayne Grudem writes: “Carbon dioxide’s effect on the global average temperature is most likely insignificant and benign…. But its effect on plant life—and therefore on all other life, which depends on plant life—is large and overwhelmingly beneficial.”[24]

Grudem then adds:

Hundreds…of peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to enhanced plant growth. Indeed, on average, doubled carbon dioxide increases plant growth efficiency by about 35%. With enhanced carbon dioxide, plants grow better, whether they are subjected to high or lower temperatures, or to drier or wetter soil. Consequently, their geographical range expands, and so does the that of the various animals that depend on them. The plants also become more resistant to diseases and pests.[25] 

Conclusion To Biblical And Scientific Evidence
Having covered our first three major topics in this blog series (two of which dealt with scientific evidence and one of which dealt with biblical evidence) we can now conclude that the carrying out of God’s commission to humans, created in his image, to bring order to this world and to work with its resources God has gifted to us (including carbon fuels)—all for his glory and the benefit of each other—is not an evil. God gifting humans with carbon fuels and the ingenuity to develop them resulting in all the good outcomes we experience in our world is a very good thing, something for which we should praise and thank God.

At the same time, these gifts, like God’s gift of sex, for example, can also be used in sinful, destructive ways and with sinful, destructive outcomes. As such, the Christian should be on guard against his own tendency to misuse these gifts and should always be ready to guard against the human tendency to misuse the environment and man’s ingenuity. But it still remains, like with sex, we do not want to conclude the gift itself is necessarily evil.

As such, we should reject the current climate change doctrine we have outlined in these blog posts.

We are now ready to turn to our fourth major topic in this blog series. We need to discover why the issue of climate change is so important for Christians to consider. We will look at that tomorrow.

---

[1] See: “U. S. Senate Committee on Environment And Public Works,” US Senate Minority Report Update: Over 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,” Dec. 11, 2008. www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?. This is cited in Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1145.

[2] See “‘Global Warming Petition Project,’ Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, www.petitionproject.org/. This is cited in Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1145.

[3] The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 18, 2011). This is cited in Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1146.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1146-47, lists several other leading scientists who disagree with radical climate change doctrine. He also mentions the tendency for those who hold to climate change doctrine to bully and ostracize those who don’t believe. In a March 29, 2017 statement to the Committee On Science, Space, And Technology Of The U.S. House Of Representatives, climatologist Judith A. Curry said: “Scientists with a perspective that is not consistent with the consensus are at best marginalized (difficult to obtain funding and get papers published by ‘gatekeeping’ journal editors) or at worst ostracized by labels of ‘denier’ or ‘heretic….’”

[5] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1147.

[6] “A Call To Truth, Prudence, And Protection,” 2-3.

[7] “A Call To Truth, Prudence, And Protection,” 10.

[8] “Does Global Warming Threaten Bird Habitats?” in Acts And Facts (June 2019): 21.

[9] M. Burke, “Tricolored Herons Here Today And Gone Tomorrow,” Chesapeake Bay Journal, 29, 1: 39. Cited in the article by Johnson.

[10] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1157.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 1158.

[14] Julie Borg, “Retreat And Advance: A Greenland Glacier’s Growth Shocks Climate Scientists,” in Notebook/Science, World (April 27, 2019): 62.

[15] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1158.

[16] Ibid, 1158-59. Grudem goes on to write about Gore’s movie (page 1159): “Gore’s movie was judged by a British court to have so many and such serious errors that it could no longer be shown in British government schools without an accompanying list and refutation of its errors. Otherwise, said the judge, it would violate an act of Parliament prohibiting political indoctrination of children.” 

[17] Diana Schoberg, “Let’s Start The Conversation” (an interview with Rassin), The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 34.

[18] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1159.

[19] Jamie Dean, “Inherit The Wind,” World (October 14, 2017), 38ff.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid, 39-40.

[22] Ibid, 40.

[23] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1159.

[24] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1159-60.

[25] Ibid, 1160. Grudem (1160-61) goes on to cite studies that show both that higher rates of carbon in past periods of history did not raise temperatures inordinately and that there was more prolific plant growth in those times.

How We Should Approach Climate Change And The Call To Reduce Radically Our Use of Carbon Fuels, Part 2

In our previous post we not only outlined what much current climate change doctrine teaches. We also explained that the earth's atmosphere causes both warming and cooling influences on the earth, rather than just warming. When we look at the known data, in other words, we at least must take a step back and question whether or not much popular climate change doctrine as found in main stream media is accurate.

We now turn to our second major topic and that has to do with principles from Scripture that call into question current climate change doctrine.

2. THE BIBLE’S TEACHING ABOUT THE EARTH THAT LEADS US TO DOUBT DIRE CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTIONS. 

There are at least five biblical truths that call into question dire climate change predictions.

God Created A Robust, Sturdy Earth, Not A Fragile One.
This fits with Romans 1:20 where Paul writes of God: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” In the creation we can see God’s power that he has always had and always will have, a power by which he brought space, time, history, and matter into being and by which he crafted the universe. This power is unlimited (Job 42:2; Mt. 19:26; Luke 1:37) and so great, especially as seen in and through creation, that it dwarfs and humbles humans (Job 38:1-42:6 [esp. 40:4; 42:1-6]; Is. 40:15-17).

Paul also says that in creation we see God’s divine nature, which would suggest other attributes. This includes his goodness and wisdom (Psalm 136:1; Dan. 2:20). Part of the way that God’s power, goodness, and wisdom are displayed is through his creation of humans as vice kings and queens, made in his image, and empowered to use the resources of the earth and to bring things into order in such a way that their work glorifies God and benefits one another (Gen. 1:26-28; Psalm 8:5-7; Prov. 31:10-31). In other words, Paul is saying that if we see the truth about creation, we should not miss the reality and glory of God in creation (see Ps. 19:1)—and this includes what the crowning glory of God’s creation (humans) does with the rest of creation that serves one another and magnifies God.

Does it make sense, then, that what we have is a very fragile universe?  No!  That would be inconsistent with what the Bible reveals about it. That would be “analogous to believing that an architect designed a building so that if someone leaned against one wall, the building’s structural feedbacks would so magnify the stress of that person’s weight that the building would collapse! No one would consider such an architectural design ‘very good’ [as affirmed in Gen. 1:31].”[1]

What would make much more sense and what would be more consistent with what the Bible reveals about God’s creation is that it would be self-correcting, self-regulating and in fact this is what history seems to reveal through warming and cooling cycles: “The history of Earth’s climate is a story of constant change. Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1,500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials. In the North Atlantic, the temperature changes about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit from peak to trough during these…cycles….”[2]

God Has Promised To Maintain Stability In The Earth And Its Seasons
In the aftermath of the worldwide flood, God promised that this world, along with its cycles of seasons, will continue during this age. Gen. 8:22 puts it this way: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” One chapter later we read (Gen. 9:11): “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” This will be the case until Jesus Christ returns and the present earth is renewed (2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 21:1-7).

It doesn’t seem likely, then, that we can destroy the earth through human activity and a resultant climate change.

God Has Ultimate Control Of The Weather 
This truth is established in several Bible passages. Consider these two clear examples. First is Jeremiah 5:24: “They do not say in their hearts, ‘Let us fear the Lord our God, who gives the rain in its season, the autumn rain and the spring rain, and keeps for us the weeks appointed for the harvest.’” In this example we not only learn of God’s sovereign control over the weather, but how wrong it is to lack a reverential awe of him such that we do not attribute such control to him.

The second example is found with regard to Jesus Christ in Matthew 8:24-27: “And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. 25 And they went and woke him, saying, ‘Save us, Lord; we are perishing.’ 26 And he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?’ Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. 27 And the men marveled, saying, ‘What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?’” The point of the record of these events and this miracle is to show the deity of Jesus Christ. In other words, what goes hand-in-hand with being God is both control over creation and weather, as well as worship of him by humans as the right response.

For us to suggest that we can turn upside down weather and creation itself in a way that appears to contradict what is said in the Bible about what God has planned for the earth and what the Bible has said about God’s sovereign control over it appears to be misdirected at best.

God Did Not Design The Earth So That We Would Destroy It By Obeying His Commands
The Bible teaches that our obedience pleases him (Col. 1:10; 1 Thes. 4:1) and it comprises the best kind of life (Dt. 10:12-13). That same Bible also teaches that God created a world that includes humans created in his image with the ability to bring order into the world and to utilize God-given resources in creation in ways that honor him, that benefit each other, and he commands humans to do that very thing (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-7; 1 Tim. 6:17).

The Hebrew word translated as “subdue” (kabash) means to make the earth useful for human beings’ benefit and enjoyment. God was entrusting Adam and Eve, and by implication the entire human race, with stewardship over the earth. God wanted them to create useful products from the earth for their benefit and enjoyment…. In this way, God gave to human beings the ability to create value in the world that did not exist before.[3]

It is hard to reconcile these facts with the idea that humans are destroying the earth by bringing order in it and benefit to each other (e.g. saving and making lives better) through ingenious inventions and works made possible by fossil fuels. It is true that humans could use these fossil fuels in ways that benefit, but at the same time pollute creation or have negative side effects. But, to think that use of them is necessarily destructive to creation contradicts Scripture.   

We Should Thank God For His Good Gifts That Benefit And Save Lives
As we discovered above, the good earth God created (Gen. 1:31) belongs to him (Ps. 24:1) and he entrusts good gifts in it to us (1 Tim. 4:4) for our enjoyment (1 Tim. 6:17) and our benefit (Mt. 5:45). This would not only include gifts such as the sun and rain, it would also include the development of resources within the earth and inventions that cultivate life that flourishes (Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-7). An example is seen in the provision of grapes and the resultant production of wine that benefits humans when used responsibly (Psalm 104:15; 1 Tim. 5:23).[4]

Another example of resources in the earth God has gifted to humans is the filling of the earth with fossils and other elements that can be harnessed and developed into fuels, as well as used in the production of so many other products that have led to cures for diseases, more affordable goods and services, the transportation of food, goods, medicines, and services to people, as well as the development of current technology we have in the world. Additionally, these resources have led to the creation of jobs, wealth, and the raising of many people out of poverty.[5]

We should praise and thank God for these resources as we should praise and thank him for the gifts he gives to us and for all the good he does for us even in hard and bad things (e.g. Psalms 50:23; 92:1; 111; 136; 1 Thes. 5:18). We should understand that the way God has created the world and humans leads to the provision of these resources and their development. We should praise God for this!

It is at this point that we see an inconsistency with the most extreme climate change doctrine that suggests carbon fuels are destructive and need to be eliminated. If we listen to a steady diet of such thinking, it is easy to think that such fuels and products are like a poison—innately evil and the only thing we can do with them is to cease using them so we can save the planet. It also calls into question the command God has given to humans to be fruitful, multiply, fill, subdue, and have dominion over the earth—a multi-faceted command that includes all the good work humans do from missions and evangelism to having and raising families to work that leads to human flourishing (Gen. 1:26-28). Because the most extreme versions of climate change doctrine make humans the culprit in the world who are destroying the planet and they also move our thanks and praise away from God for his gifts in creation, this should cause us to take a second look at and to doubt this doctrine.[6]

The Bible’s teaching should lead the Christian to question extreme climate change doctrine. This involves looking at how global warming actually works to see if there is truly evidence for such doctrine. We have already done this. It also should lead us to ask the question, “Is there other scientific evidence that calls into question the dire climate change predictions?” The answer is, “Yes.” We now turn to that other body of evidence, which also forms our third major topic.

---

[1] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1140.
Additionally, Jake Hebert, “Climate Alarmism And The Age Of The Earth,” Acts And Facts (April 2019): 11, adds: “Many secular scientists believe Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide because the astronomical theory, built on old-earth assumptions, demands it…. ICR research has shown that evidence for the astronomical theory is weak to nonexistent; Scientists use computer models to argue for high climate sensitivity, but these models likely contain flawed assumptions; It appears Earth’s climate has a low sensitivity to change. We don’t need to buy in to climate change alarmism.”

[2] Fred Singer, Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008).

[3] Wayne Grudem, “Property,” ch. 34, in Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 905.
This Hebrew word, Kabash, is used in Numbers 32:22, 29 to suggest, in the context of that entire chapter, that it describes the actions and work of making the Promised Land habitable, a place in which Israel could be benefited and flourish.

[4] This example also introduces the reality that all good gifts God gives us can also have harmful effects, especially if used in sinful and distorted ways: e.g. alcoholism.

[5] Andree Seu Peterson, “Gifts For Life: Fossil Fuels Have Brought Prosperity To Billions,” in Voices, in World, May 25, 2019: 67.

[6] This is not to suggest that humans can do no wrong in the world and that we have no destructive effect on our planet at all. After all, it was our sin that led to the curse on creation (cf. Gen. 3; Rom. 8:19-25). What is more, God deemed it necessary to instruct humans that part of our righteous living is to treat the rest of creation well (Prov. 12:10). However, it is one thing to call humans to responsible use of creation and the resources in it. It is another to suggest that the very using of the resources and the development away from its pristine original form (both are part of God’s creation mandate given to humans in Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-7) are necessarily destructive.

How We Should Approach Climate Change And The Call To Reduce Radically Our Use Of Carbon Fuels

Recently World magazine writer, Onize Ohikere, reported the following about young people zealous to fight climate change:[1]

Millions of students around the world skipped school on Friday for a global climate change strike. The movement included more than 5,000 demonstrations in 156 countries, including Germany, Nigeria, and Tokyo. Young demonstrators held signs that read, “You are destroying our future,” and “There is no planet B.” In the United States, organizers expect more than 800 events. New York City Public Schools said parents could excuse their students to participate in the strike.

What spurred the demonstrations? Swedish teen Greta Thunberg started a smaller movement last year to encourage her peers to demand action from their leaders. This year’s protests precede a United Nations Climate Action Summit that kicks off Monday [Sept. 23] in New York.

This reminds us that unless a person is totally unplugged from television, news sources and periodicals, it is hard to remain unaware of the dire predictions about our planet due to climate change. Both the supposition that the climate has changed radically due to human influence and the predicted destructive consequences are communicated as facts and alleged as well-documented through scientific data, which suggests they cannot be doubted. Nor should they be ignored.

Consider some other recent examples:

• “Earth is sick with multiple and worsening environmental ills killing millions of people yearly, a new U.N. report says. Climate change, a global major extinction of animals and plants, a human population soaring toward 10 billion, degraded land, polluted air, and plastics, pesticides and hormone-changing chemicals in the water are making the planet an increasing unhealthy place for people, says the scientific report issued once every few years…. Several other scientists also praised the report, which draws on existing science, data, and maps…. The scientists said the most important and pressing problems facing humankind are global warming and loss of biodiversity because they are permanent and affect so many people in so many different ways.”[2]

• “Nature is in more trouble now than at any other time in human history, with extinction looming over 1 million species of plants and animals, scientists said today in the United Nations first comprehensive report on biodiversity. It’s all because of humans, but it’s not too late to fix the problem…. Conservation scientists from around the world convened in Paris to issue the report, which exceeded 1,000 pages. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services included more than 450 researchers who used 15,000 scientific and government reports…. The poor in less-developed-countries bear the greatest burden. The report’s 39-page summary highlighted ways people are reducing biodiversity…. Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. Almost half of the world’s land mammals—not including bats—and nearly a quarter of the birds already have had their habitats hit hard by global warming.”[3]

• “I am a climate optimist, but it’s up to us to act fast—to stop burning fossil fuels right now and start transitioning to clean energy…. Based on the best scientific evidence available to date, we have less than 12 years to mobilize a complete conversion from fossil fuels to green energy, or we risk dangerously destabilizing Earth’s climate.”[4]

• “I don’t make judgments. I just say the facts, that things are changing: 2017 was a devastating year for hurricanes. These things are happening. Call it what you want, but we need to look at the environment and we need to talk about it.”[5]

What is interesting about these examples is that they all come within a period of just a few months in the kinds of main-line sources to which most persons have access. They represent the ongoing catechesis that has resulted in convincing the minds of the average person. What are the convictions to which many have come and that are implied in these examples?

• There is currently significant climate change that is the result of human actions. Science has allegedly proven this. 

• This significant change is seen in weather patterns throughout the earth, such as the increase in severity and number of hurricanes. 

• This significant change will have dire consequences upon people (especially the poor) and upon animals and plants. 

• The main culprit in climate change is the use of fossil fuels by humans. 

• The way to turn around these trends and to prevent devastation of the earth is to engage in radical reductions in fossil fuels right away. 

There are multiple motivations for Christians to take note of and to be involved in environmental issues. The first and most important is that all God has created—which is all the world (Gen. 1:1; Psalm 100:3)—belongs to him (Ps. 24:1), is for his glory (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16), is good (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:4), and is entrusted to us for our joy (1 Tim. 6:17). This means we are stewards of it and are called to take care of it faithfully (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; Mt. 25:14-30). Certainly, regardless of what any Christian has concluded on the above issues, there is ample motivation in the Bible for us to care about this good earth God has created and entrusted to us.[6]

A second motivation found among some Christians is the long-standing accusation made against Christianity that the teachings of the Bible, especially in the call of Genesis 1:26-28 to humans to have dominion over and to subdue the earth, has led to destruction of the earth.[7] Though the reality is that any lack of concern for the environment and true destructive behavior toward it arose from those who believed man has total dominion over creation apart from any submission to God (descendants of the Enlightenment) and not from a truly consistent biblical worldview,[8] nonetheless, some Christians still feel the sting of such accusations and conclude that if we are to make a successful defense of the Christian faith we must show we are not anti-environment.

This second motivation leads to the third, namely, in our current world in which the environment plays such a huge role in the minds of so many and especially in light of accusations that deniers of climate change are much of the problem behind our current environmental crisis, there can be strong motivation to be involved and to adopt the current climate change doctrine espoused above. Some Christians might even think we have to do this in order to be taken seriously by the world around us.

Yet, what should we make of this doctrine that has concluded humans are the cause of destructive climate change that is having significant negative impact upon our planet and will only get worse if we do not radically and immediately reduce our use of carbon fuels? 

In this and four subsequent blog posts I will argue that we should be good stewards of creation, yet, we have strong reasons to doubt and to reject current climate change doctrine as just outlined. I will do this by looking at five major topics.[9]

1. An Explanation: The Earth’s Atmosphere Causes Both Warming And Cooling Influences On The Earth. 

We begin here for two reasons. First, if we are to discuss intelligently climate change, at the heart of which is global warming, we need to understand how our planet is warmed. Additionally, we must see that there are not only warming, but also cooling, influences at work. This also opens the door to a different and more complete perspective on what is currently happening on earth.

Warming Effects Of The Atmosphere
Since the warming of the earth is such a current emphasis, we will launch into our discussion by understanding how this happens.  

We are able to live on the earth because its atmosphere keeps it warm enough from the sun. The way this is done is often called “the greenhouse effect.” In other words, part of the atmosphere retains heat energy from the sun.[10]

Ninety-nine percent (78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen) of the atmosphere does not hold in the sun’s heat. There are fourteen other elements in the remaining one percent, Within these fourteen, those that don’t have a warming effect constitute 0.55% of the atmosphere. The ones that do have a warming effect constitute about 0.45% of the atmosphere and are called “greenhouse gases.”

As we zero in on the greenhouse gases we discover that water vapor makes up 80% (which is about 0.4% of the entire atmosphere—a little higher at the surface and diminishing with altitude). “The other greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (about 0.04 % of the total atmosphere), methane (about 0.00018%), nitrous oxide (about 0.00003%), ozone (less than 0.000007%), and miscellaneous trace gases. All these other greenhouse gases (apart from water) total less than 0.05 % of the atmosphere.” It is clear, then, that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas—“responsible for about 80% of the…warming…of the atmosphere.” Since another 15% of the warming effect derives from clouds (clouds are made of water droplets, not vapor),[11] most scientists conveniently combine water vapor and the net effect of warming clouds to say that 95% of greenhouse warming comes from water. “The remaining approximately 5% of greenhouse warming comes from carbon dioxide (about 3.6%), methane (about 0.36%), nitrous oxide (about 0.95%) and miscellaneous gases including ozone (about 0.072%).”

Unlike a greenhouse,[12] “greenhouse gases don’t keep warm air from rising and blowing away. Instead, they absorb heat energy and then radiate it outward.”[13] “Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy (heat) [that comes from the sun to the earth’s surface] and then, having absorbed it, radiate it outward. Some of it goes up into space, thus cooling the earth by moving the heat away, but some of it radiates back down to the earth’s surface and warms the earth.”[14] It is this dual effect that keeps the earth from getting too cold or too warm. God’s wise design as seen in the “greenhouse effect” should lead us to give him thanks and praise!

Cooling Effects Of The Atmosphere
Without the greenhouse effect the earth’s temperature would average about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. With it the average temperature is about 59 degrees Fahrenheit.[15] Yet, the reason the average temperature is not higher is due to cooling influences that moderate the greenhouse effect. These influences include evaporation, precipitation, the upward movement of warm air, wind, and thousands of other feedbacks.[16] With the greenhouse effect and without such cooling influences the average temperature on earth would be 140 degrees Fahrenheit. “Since 59 degrees is about 42 percent of 140…the feedbacks considered as a whole eliminate about 58 percent of ‘greenhouse warming.’”[17]

The Controversy About Carbon Dioxide
Those who believe global warming is a threat caused by humans argue that “human activities are causing the concentration of greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, secondarily methane, and to a much lesser extent ozone and chlorofluorocarbons—to increase, and that this increased concentration could warm the earth enough to cause significant, perhaps catastrophic, harm to people and ecosystems.”[18] What contributes to this warming the most, so goes the argument, is carbon dioxide, which is responsible for about 3.6% of the total greenhouse warming effect. This carbon dioxide comes from the burning of organic material, such as wood, as well as from the burning of coal, gasoline, or natural gas (methane). As a result, much of our energy production currently releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.[19]

We must be quick to point out that Carbon dioxide, which is also emitted by all insects, animals, and humans (so it is a natural part of God’s creation) has many important functions. It regulates our blood flow and rate of breathing and it is crucial for photosynthesis in plants. We ought to see the following, then:

Thus, in a wonderful cycle of nature that has been designed by God, animals and people continually use up oxygen and release carbon dioxide for plants to use, and then plants use up that carbon dioxide and release oxygen for people and animals to use. Carbon dioxide is thus essential to all the major life systems on the earth. We should not think of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but as an essential part of God’s wise arrangement of life on earth.[20]

With carbon dioxide playing such a vital role in creation, we need to ask, where do fears of climate change arise? Consider the following points:[21]

• “Many atmospheric scientists believe the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from…about 0.028 percent to 0.040 percent, since preindustrial times (before about 1750).” 

• The theory suggests that this increase came “from the burning of carbon-based (‘fossil’) fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas.” 

• What is the effect of raising carbon dioxide to the degree it has been since preindustrial times? If we round the increase to doubling the amount, “according to different estimates, would raise earth’s average surface temperature, before feedbacks, by about 1.8 degrees to 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit. Frankly, that is a relatively small increase in average temperature that does not scare anybody with knowledge of climatology.” 

• “What causes some people to fear much greater warming is the belief that climate feedback magnifies this warming.[22] So that belief is built into the computer models that predict global temperatures for many decades into the future.”

• “All the computer models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assume that climate feedbacks magnify the warming that comes from greenhouse gases.” 

It is crucial for us to stop and highlight that fears of future global warming rest on predictions of computer models. These models, which are not infallible, are dependent upon the data humans put into them and are based on giving different weights to different factors and different formulas based on different assumptions.

Therefore, the fears of future global warming rest on hypotheses represented by computer models, not on empirical observations of the real world. These models, by assuming various feedbacks that add to the greenhouse effect, predict that warming from doubled carbon dioxide since preindustrial time would result in an increase of 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit to a midrange estimate of 5.4 degrees to a high estimate of about 7 degrees over the whole period. (Global average temperature has already risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, leaving about another 1.7 degree to 3.6 degrees to 5.2 degrees yet to come, of the models are right.)”[23] (emphasis added)

Those who have offered the most dire predictions and advocated for the greatest and most radical changes to our use of fossil fuels have used the larger numbers in the models. This leads to assertions that we have less than twelve years to act before climate change and its consequences are irreversible.

We must also see there is another way to project the effects. Since we know that climate feedbacks have in the past reduced the warming effects of greenhouse gases by 58 %, it is also most likely this would continue. Many scientists argue there is no justification for concluding the feedbacks will act differently with human-caused greenhouses gases than naturally-caused greenhouse gases.[24]  

What would the result be if feedbacks continue to have this effect? Earlier it was mentioned that the increase in carbon dioxide from preindustrial times would raise surface temperatures from 1.8 degree Fahrenheit to 2.16 degrees. Yet, if the feedbacks decreased these by 58%, this would mean the net effect would be a rise from 0.76 degree Fahrenheit to 0.9 degree. “An increase in average world temperature of less than 1 degree Fahrenheit is not dangerous. In fact, in general, such slight warming would be beneficial especially to agriculture…. Longer growing seasons would make food more abundant and therefore more affordable, a great benefit to the world’s poor.”[25]

Conclusion
Must we, then, believe the dire climate change predictions?  If we base our answer on actual empirical data about the effects of climate feedbacks (in other words, if we based our conclusion on observable events that have already occurred), we discover the effects of greenhouses gases are not multiplied as the computer models suggest.

Yet, there are also two other reasons to doubt the conclusions: Some biblical principles that call them into question and also other scientific evidence that lead us to doubt the dire predictions.

We will turn now to look at the principles from the Bible in our next post.

---

[1] The following was posted at world.wng.org on September 20, 2019.

[2] This is from an Associated Press article covering the sixth Global Environment Outlook, released March 13, 2019, at a U.N. conference in Nairobi, Kenya: “UN: Environment Is Deadly, Worsening Mess, But not Hopeless, “ Kearney Hub (March 13, 2019): 8A.

[3] Seth Borenstein (AP Science Writer), “U.N. Report Finds Humans Hammering Nature Hard,” Kearney Hub (May 6, 2019): 1A.

[4] Sahar Mansoor (Policy analyst for the Selco Foundation, which focuses on sustainable energy solutions), side bar in Mary Robinson, “Losing Ground,” The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 39.

[5] Barry Rassin (Rotary International President), “Let’s Start The Conversation,” The Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 34. This quote is found in an interview Rassin did with The Rotarian magazine. This interview stands as the lead to a number of articles giving the sense of being non-partisan and that all are crafted to give a call to Rotarians to be part of the solution to climate change. After all, science has proven the facts of climate change and its devastating effects on the earth, animals, plants, and people (especially the poor). So, who wouldn’t want to be part of the solution? The implication of this particular quote is that hurricanes are greater in number and severity due to climate change.
The lead to the interview with Rassin reads: “The environment isn’t one of Rotary’s six areas of focus, but it’s deeply intertwined with each of them.”

[6] New Testament Scholar, Douglas J. Moo, made this very point in his article, “Nature In the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology And The Environment,” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society, 49 (2006): 449-88. He argues that man created in the image of God, as vice regents, who are to steward nature in God-glorifying, God-centered, and in Christ-emulating ways, along with the reality of the resurrection and the future new heaven and new earth (new creation) and its impact upon us now, all argue for us to be good stewards of the environment.
Both the document, “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call To Action” (from the Evangelical Climate Initiative) and also the document, “A Call To Truth, Prudence, And Protection Of The Poor: An Evangelical Response To Global Warming” (from the Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship Of Creation), attest to the concern Christians of different perspectives have for the environment.

[7] This accusation was first and famously made by Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science, 155 (1967): 1203-7.

[8] Moo, “Nature In The New Creation:” 13.

[9] For the direction of these blog posts and three of the five major topics I am heavily dependent upon Wayne Grudem, “Stewardship Of The Environment” (Chapter 41), in Christian Ethics: An Introduction To Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 1095-1169.

[10] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1134. The following discussion about the makeup of the atmosphere also comes from this same source.

[11] Some clouds warm and some cool the earth.

[12] The greenhouse gases don’t actually function like a greenhouse.

[13] Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1135-36.

[14] Ibid, 1136.

[15] Ibid, 1136.

[16] Ibid, 1136.

[17] Ibid, 1137.

[18] Ibid, 1137.

[19] Ibid, 1137.

[20] Ibid, 1137-38.

[21] The following points come from Grudem, Christian Ethics, 1138.

[22] For an example of this way of thinking see Mary Robinson, “Losing Ground,” in the Rotarian, 197, 10 (April 2019): 36. This article was adapted from her book, written with Caitriona Palmer, Climate-Justice: Hope, Resilience, And The Fight For A Sustainable Future (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018).

[23] Ibid, 1138-39.

[24] Ibid, 1139.

[25] Ibid, 1139.