Climate Change and the Bible – Part 2

“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). 

Corrupt Climate Science
We continue our examination of what the Bible has to say about “climate change.” Is there a global climate crisis? Indeed, we are dealing here with a heavily contested topic, one that is ground zero for global policy and geopolitical leverage.

Alarmingly, global climate fears continue to escalate. Doomsters are winning! We are continually being barraged by shrieks of hysteria. However, are there contrary views to consider? Yes—for one, the Bible. Secondly, a group of scientists that have contrary views to the “global climate consensus.”

What Non-Consensus Scientists Say
There indeed are other voices and other climate theories. As it happens, we focus on the one that seems most audacious ... the one that directly refutes the “main plank” of the establishment consensus; namely, that it is higher CO2 levels that cause global warming.

This contrary view argues that rising temperature is the cause of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

Really? Can there be such a large schism between revered and accredited “scientists”? It may be difficult to believe that such opposite views could exist in the modern world of science. Some say higher emissions lead to hotter climates; the refuters say the exact opposite is true.

The major reason for the divergent views is the role of the sun and ancient weather history. The sun is the center of our solar system; and, of course, the world is dependent upon it.

The earth’s position and movements relative to the sun establish seasons, temperature, and weather changes. It therefore would not be surprising if “climate change” is prominently attributable to the sun. 

The earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun that is tilted 23.5 degrees, 3.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. This tilt changes over time. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years (according to one study), the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. 

Because of these tilt changes, the weather patterns as we know them do fluctuate. This leads to large climate variances and extremes over time, as indeed has been the case since the dawn of history. There has always been climate change. As the Bible says: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9b).

We will further examine some of the alternate views. We will not fear countering the consensus. After all, God is not much impressed with the “consensus” views of mankind. The Lord says, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” Isaiah 55:8-9). 

And indeed, the sun is much higher than the earth.

Alternate Views of Brave Scientists
Let us next briefly review the weather/climate history studies of the non-consensus naysayers. (We rely here on articles written by Katie Spence for the Epoch Times.)

To begin, consider Dr. Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa. He agrees, saying that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which itself is due to solar activity.

Also directly contrary, Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, says that: “CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2.”

Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, also examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years. Dr. Jackson is a distinguished researcher and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis. He specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres. Dr. Jackson’s paper, published in 2017, found that “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature changes in the ancient climate.”

Why do these scholars come up with such different perspectives—directly opposite to the “esteemed consensus” of the majority of the science community?

A major difference is the fact that their “alternate” view is based on studies of history and the effects of the solar system.

Crucially, consider one of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research, paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions). This relies on indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records; in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the earth’s water throughout history.

According to Dr. Clark: “The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now.”

Mr. Clark claims that scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature history during recent ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, thanks to proxy records (i.e. tree rings and others). For instance, such records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than we are experiencing today. During that time, agriculture and civilization flourished. That is also occurring today. As documented by a rising Leaf Index, agriculture productivity has improved. After all, CO2 is necessary for plants to grow.

According to Dr. Clark’s research, about every 1,000 years or so, weather patterns seem to have these fluctuations. He says, “This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”

Christopher Essex, emeritus professor of applied mathematics and physics at the University of Western Ontario (who was also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Academic Advisory Council), comments: “It’s just about hyping up anxiety and fear so the people will go along with things and not question what’s going on. There’s so much going on in the atmosphere. It’s complex, conductive, and turbulent.”

We could quote additional studies that support the view that earth temperature follows the trend in CO2, not the other way around.

No one will disagree that the sun has an all-encompassing influence on planet earth. It is the center of our solar system, and produces such earthly phenomena as the annual seasons, temperature changes, gravitational pull, volatile sun flares, radio waves, and much more.

In short, the sun impacts virtually everything on earth. As such, it is surprising that the science community does not focus more on the sun’s impact on climate change (and historical temperature data).

The sun is doing what it was created to do. It is not experiencing a crisis.

To this point, before moving on, we briefly draw the following conclusions:

• Incredibly, that “climate fighters” today are barking up the wrong tree. Their assumptions—and therefore their recommendations—are incorrect. Yet, they have convinced policymakers and politicians around the world to spend multi-trillions of dollars on solutions that are not guaranteed to be effective.

• That, for the most part, climate changes are natural. They are driven predominantly by the solar system and the orbit of the earth. Hence, there is no “climate crisis.” Trends can reverse, as they have historically.

• The earth will not burn up in a ball of fire. Obviously, this has not happened before … even though global temperatures were much higher in the past. 

• Climate changes are a natural occurrence. This will assuredly continue in the future.

Young Earth Invalidation? 
An explanation may be required, as some of the scientists quoted in this article series have cited long timeframes … i.e. 10,000 years, 40,000 years … etc. Those who subscribe to the young-earth view may protest. Indeed, this is a contested view. How can something show a 100,000-year history, when the age of the earth is only circa-6,000 years old today?

Personally, this writer sees no problem here. I note that most people who hold to Creationism, automatically presume that God created the world instantly at time-point zero. All systems would have started at a fully mature state. Lakes would have already been full of water … before any rain would fall. Mountain rivers would be instantly stocked with rainbow trout. 

All the above sounds correct and plausible to the Creationist. However, could one not just as well presume that the world is shown at an age that is different from the creation date?

This may sound confusing. Allow us to explain with an example. What might one conclude about the age of Adam when he was created—the first man? Clearly, according to the Bible, he was created at zero years old. However, anyone examining Adam at that time would have identified him as a mature male.

They would therefore deduce that he was perhaps 100 years old or so, assuming a lifespan of near 1,000 years before the Flood. The scientist would say that Adam appeared to be much older than his creation date. 

This example illustrates that God the Creator is not limited to chronological time. As such, God can also create mountains that appear to be much older than their actual birthdate. A scientist drilling up ice cores could plausibly see 20,000 years of snow layers, though the actual creation date was only 6,000 years ago. That is entirely possible. He is the God of the Impossible. If He is indeed the Creator, this does not add any difficulty for Him.

This then begs the question: What came first … the chicken or the egg? The answer? Neither. Both were created on the same day. Taking this view, this writer is not troubled by the long dates mentioned by the paleoclimatologists.

Midnight Call - 08/2024