Climate Change and the Bible – Part 1

“Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun” (Psalm 19:4). 

“Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?” (Pro-verbs 6:28).This writer ventures to answer “No.” We are dealing here with a heavily contested topic these days, one that is ground zero for global policy and geopolitical leverage. It is climate change. Expressing our views, most surely our feet will be held to the fire.

Critically, global climate fears continue to escalate. Alarmists are winning! Quoting a recent snippet from The Guardian, “The climate disaster is here. Earth is already becoming unlivable.” We are being barraged by such shrieks of hysteria continually.

And so, hyped reporting and histrionic headlines are enflaming existential worries for humans across the globe. So much so, in fact, that according to surveys, as much as a third of the younger generation are reluctant to have children. Reports National Geographic, “Climate anxiety is widespread among youth.”

Why this view? Simplistically, if the world is going to burn up in a ball of fire, why have kids? If anything, having more humans will simply make conditions worse in their perspective. 

According to surveys (e.g., YouGov —International Climate Change Survey), most people around the world today believe that the climate is changing, that it is a crisis, and that human activity is mainly responsible.

Particularly effective in stirring up climate panic are claims that developments have reached all-time extremes—levels never before experienced on planet earth. For example, the IEA (International Energy Agency) reported that the average surface temperature on earth has reached a new “all-time” high. Yes, an all-time high. Documentation for this claim, however, is lacking.

Reports of this kind are aimed at roiling people’s emotions and are typically biased. This plays into supporting the initiatives of governments and organizations that claim they can “stand against” global warming. But truly, can this be done? Is this realistic?

To answer, we must first understand the science behind such claims … what is known or unknown … what is unproven theory, and what is not. Above all, we want to know why facts (the truth) are often deviously slanted by policymakers.

In regard to the claim cited by the IEA—that surface temperatures have reached new highs—this is another case of egregious hyperbole for several reasons. For one, how far back into history must one probe to support such claims … 20 years, 2,000 years, or more? Evidence (which we will shortly review) says otherwise. Many more such exaggerations could be illustrated and debunked. 

A frustrating question then is this: In this whole debate, what to believe and what not? Making this much more difficult, it must be acknowledged that the topic of global climate is very difficult and tangled to discuss for anyone, scientist or not. 

An influential book on this topic, written by Steven E. Koonin, sets the tone correctly in its title: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters. Frankly, as he states, much theory, facts, statistics, and scientific interpretation remain “unsettled.” Nevertheless, we can seek balance and identify what is unproven.

What must be understood currently, in our view, is why unproven (false) theories and solutions are accepted and hyped to justify “fighting global warming.” Untold trillions of dollars are being marshaled to fund unproven solutions. This is unwise both economically and ethically. 

These rancorous responses to “global warming” will cause many bad repercussions over the long-term. Some of these are already beginning to manifest … e.g., high imbedded inflation, increasingly high global indebtedness, wealth distribution extremes, loss of freedom, etc.

Eventually, a doozie of a global economic depression must be expected.

Alternate Theory Warriors
Many observers are convinced that mankind’s industrial boom over past centuries is the prime cause of rising emissions and global warming. To date, there is no valid, conclusive proof that this might be the case. It is a view based upon an unproven hypothesis. As such, it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that mankind can change the general climate of the entire world with any precision, if at all. 

It is not widely known (in fact, often repressed) that there exist some very plausible counterarguments. Unfortunately (and often deliberately), these counterviews are given short shrift in the public eye.

Thankfully, despite there being a fervent so-called “global scientific consensus” that scorns alternative perspectives, there do exist a number of independent climate researchers. They need to be brave. Why? They are frequently attacked and ridiculed … no matter the merit of their opinions. It is similar to the treatment that Creationists typically receive. Their views are often suppressed and scorned, and they may even be fired from tenured university positions, though the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid … in fact, far from it.

Personal Views: Science and Me
Fifty years ago, I enrolled in Honors Science at the University of Waterloo (located in Ontario, Canada). I loved science—biology, histology, chemistry, physics … etc.—and graduated cum laude with a B.Sc. two years later. 

Thanks to my wife for her PHT degree (putting hubby through), I was able to study in my summer semesters and complete the general science degree earlier.

Perhaps surprising, given my science major, I never did buy into the Theory of Evolution. Why? Because to my mind at the time, it was not scientific. There were no conclusive proofs … no uncontested facts … it was simply far beyond probability. And indeed, the theory of evolution is exactly that—a theory, a far-fetched theory at that.

But that is not the where the problem lies, however. What is most egregious is that evolution is not taught as theory but rather as fact. Doing so is deceitful and corrupt. It shows that evolutionists are living inside a cocoon of delusion. Their tribe is mutually congratulatory with each other … the blind leading the blind, so to speak.

It is amazing how some scientists will twist and warp their theories—forcing square pegs into round holes—as they attempt to stay accepted members of their tribal consensus. The longer that time passes, however, the more facts arise that confuse and challenge the unanimity of the evolution fraternity. 

This continues. After more than a century has passed, scientists still doggedly search for the “missing links.” We can be reasonably sure that they will never find them.

All the biology and science textbooks I was prescribed during my undergraduate years were suffused with evolutionary bias, often presented as fact by the professors. I identified with the situation that the prophet Daniel faced. Like Daniel, I studied “pagan” theories and knowledge, yet excelled even though I did not endorse them as my own beliefs.

Instead, I covered the university campus with thousands of Jack Chick publications. These were small cartoon booklets that engagingly presented Christian messages (the Gospel, Creationism … etc.).

The perpetuation of evolution as fact is one of the greatest frauds of all time. As the saying goes (often attributed to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

With such precedent, it would not be outrageous to consider that the present consensus views on “climate change” could be equally wrong and fraudulent.

Mankind and Global Climate Crisis: Who Is to Blame?
Holding the view that mankind has not been the major cause of “global warming,” does not mean that humans have not sullied the planet. For example, consider the likely environmental impact of nuclear bombs since the middle of the 20th century. It is claimed that over 2,000 nuclear bombs have been detonated for testing and demonstration (not to mention the two bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945). 

It would be surprising if these detonations had no detrimental impact upon the environment and human health. How and to what extent is still the subject of study. It would seem that the activities of mankind will have had an impact of some kind. 

But to conclude that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are solely attributable to mankind, and that this is unusual and destructive, is not proven.

Let us consider the matter of rising carbon emissions. This has been the central plank upon which rest the initiatives of the “global warming fighters.” In their view, increased emissions directly cause rising temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere.

Indeed, carbon emissions (CO2, methane, and nitrogen oxide for the most part) have increased markedly in the atmosphere in recent centuries. It is claimed that this rise coincides with the start of the Industrial Age (considered to be the year 1760). However, the data does not conclusively provide proof of such a relationship. The climate changes are not entirely manmade.

Are there any other facts that we can review on these questions? Yes, indeed. However, we must keep in mind that proof of their impact upon “climate change” may not be possible either. 

The major debate concerns proof that rising CO2 levels cause global warming (or climate change in all its facets). As mentioned, the broad consensus among scientists is that rising CO2 in the atmosphere is directly linked to the earth’s rising atmospheric temperature. 

This false assumption has led to the construction of “climate models” that are primarily dependent upon CO2 dynamics. These models (of which there are several) purport to be able to predict future CO2 levels, finetune policies to reduce global temperatures … etc. This is the fiercely defended “consensus view.”

But what of the naysayers? Do any have better and more accurate facts or theories? Yes! In the next part, we will explore some of the alternate theories of “consensus naysayers.”

Midnight Call - 07/2024