NOTE: Before I lauch into this, let me say, first of all, that western civilization since the Industrial Revolution has failed miserably at caring for our planet. I would love nothing more than for everyone to improve in this area--consume less, waste less, trash our planet less, and learn to live better, healthier lives for us and the environment. So yes, it's possible for a Conservative to also be somewhat of a tree-hugger. ;-) 

Okay, here's my tirade:

Did you know that whether the climate change is caused by humans or not is still being debated by the experts, the scientists in the various fields involved? So why do most people simply assume that it is true, and assume that everyone else believes it's true as well? Hello? Have we all left our brains on the doorstep?

Last year my brain started thinking, well, everyone seems to believe it now, so I guess it must be true. That, my friends, is dangerous thinking. That's equivalent to turning off our brains and letting ourselves be led by the nose. A couple of times in the recent past I thought I should look into it myself. Whenever I spend even five minutes searching out truth, I always come up with the fact that climate change caused by humans has not been scientifically proven. However, it has been known that the earth undergoes regular climate changes, throughout its history. I remember, in grade school, learning that we are at the tail end of the last Ice Age.

Here is more--the reply to a query to the Institute of Creation Research. It's long, so plan some time to read it through:

Thank you for contacting ICR regarding the current status of global warming. Our (out of state) ICR scientist/specialist in weather (Dr. Larry Vardiman) has posted his comments below and in his April, 2007 article Evidence for Global Warming. The greenhouse effect continues to be a major topic of conversation and study in both scientific and political circles. The explanation of how radiation is trapped by the gases in the atmosphere and released only after the temperature of the atmosphere warms sufficiently has become commonplace on talk shows and in science lectures. An increasing concentration of carbon dioxide has been identified as causing the greenhouse effect to become more pronounced.

There is no need to discuss Al Gore’s movie entitled An Inconvenient Truth, since it is basically a political statement based on faulty assumptions with very little scientific merit. Although ICR has not presented a commentary on Al Gore’s movie, another good creation organization, Answers in Genesis, has in an article entitled Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far. The introduction says,

We are constantly bombarded with bad news about global warming. Hurricanes are increasing in frequency and intensity, the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting and raising the sea level, the Arctic Sea ice cap is melting, droughts are imminent, people are dying of the heat and so on.¹ Global warming will even cause larger and more toxic poison ivy.² It is all because man is polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of tropical forests. We must act now, advocates claim, or we will become engulfed in a runaway heat blast. This is the doomsayers’ position.

Other voices allege that global warming will halt the ocean heat circulation in the Atlantic and plunge the earth into the next ice age, which is due soon. Already, the North Atlantic pole-ward heat transport has supposedly decreased 30%!³

There are also a number of scientists who believe global warming, so far, has been slight. They believe that doomsayers have not proven their case for the expected huge temperature increase for a doubling of carbon dioxide, and that increased carbon dioxide may have a net beneficial effect. In fact, 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who are in a position to understand the global warming issues, have signed the following statement:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses 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 environments of the Earth.⁴

Here are some comments regarding Al Gore’s claims:

Al Gore wrote a book on global warming in which he seemed to believe every dire prediction of the radical environmentalists.¹⁷ Recently, he has produced a video documentary with an accompanying book, called An Inconvenient Truth. The video contains the same old misinformation. M. Bergen stated:

But Mr. Gore’s radical political agenda and tendency for half-truth have undergone no such makeover … Mr. Gore employs stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric to contend that opposition views on climate change are rooted in callous profiteering.¹⁸

Mr. Gore’s hysterical and ad hominem attacks are typical of doomsayers. It is common for these advocates to claim that those who disagree with them are working for the oil companies. But we should look at the agendas of the radical environmentalists, and the great economic benefit for them to keep the pot stirred. A new website examines this and is trying to calm some of this hysteria at www.fightglobalwarminghysteria.com.

The article concludes by saying,

Clearly, more careful research is needed.⁵ All positions should have a say on the issue. Unfortunately, many qualified critics are demonized by the media and proponents of runaway global warming. Critics are commonly accused of believing in a flat earth.²⁷ Furthermore, we need to compare the potential benefits with the potential harms of global warming. Those evangelicals who signed the ECI need to study both sides of the issue (1 Thessalonians 5:21) instead of jumping on the doomsayer bandwagon. And if the evidence shows that global warming should be reduced, we should find and invest in new, cost-effective technologies that do so.²⁷

And ICR scientists would concur with the conclusion. It is not yet clear whether the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is necessarily connected to the observed temperature changes or will result in the dire predictions of further temperature increase and changes in precipitation patterns. However, Climate cycles of sorts have been observed to occur throughout history and are not a contradiction to the creation model. 

Because of this uncertainty, it is probably too early to begin developing public policy on carbon dioxide emissions related to temperature increases. However, because of evidence that other pollutants produce harmful effects, and the potential that carbon dioxide may also be a problem, it may be time that we reconsider our personal role as stewards of this earth. We should not adopt the secular view that "Mother Earth" must be protected at all costs. This is to fall into the error of pantheism, which teaches that the earth, the sun, and the stars are all there is. Such a view is wrong, because it attributes deity to the earth. We need to understand the mandate to "have dominion... over all the earth" that God has given us in Genesis 1:26. Man is responsible to use the earth to sustain himself, and to occupy until the owner returns, as described in Matthew 25:14-30. God expects us to use the earth, and to keep it in good repair, much as a landowner would expect his tenants to keep up his farm while he was away.

Not all scientists agree that global warming is actually occurring. It seems that most who are involved in the calculations dealing with global warming disagree. The following quote is from S. Fred Singer, atmospheric and environmental scientist and Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington, D.C.

National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States

Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer

July 18, 2000

We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."

• • •

We must conclude that regional forecasts from climate models are beyond the state of the art and are even less reliable than those for the global average. Since the NACC scenarios are based on such forecasts, the NACC projections are not credible.

• • •

Currently available scientific evidence does not support any of the results of the NACC, which should therefore be viewed merely as a "what if" exercise, similar to the one conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 [5]. Such exercises deserve only a modest amount of effort and money; one should not shortchange the serious research required for atmospheric and ocean observations, and for developing better climate models.

The NACC should definitely NOT be used to justify irrational and unscientific energy and environmental policies, including the economically damaging Kyoto Protocol. These policy recommendations are especially appropriate during the coming presidential campaigns and debates.

Dixie Lee Ray, in her book, Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? says, "All available evidence shows that climate varies naturally." Climate changes according to cycles. The period from 1450-1850 is sometimes referred to as the "Little Ice Age." In those days some of the trees in England's Somerset forests froze solid and exploded from the build up of internal ice.  The Thames River froze solid all the way up to London. The time from 900-1100 has been referred to as the Medieval Optimum where grapes grew in England because the weather was so mild. The temperature changes of that time can be deduced by the French records of wine grape harvests.

It is suggested that the global warming issue is not scientific but political. It is about getting the U.S. to become more controlled by the U.N. The former French Prime Minister, Michel Rochard, said at the Earth Summit of 1992 in Brazil,

Let's not deceive ourselves. It is necessary that the community of nations exert pressure, even using coercion, against countries that have installations that threaten the environment. International instruments must be transformed into instruments of coercion, of sanctions, of boycott, even-perhaps in 15 years' time - of outright confiscation of any dangerous installation.  What we seek, to be frank, is the legitimacy of controlling the application of the international decisions.

Michael J. Oard, M.S. says in his article, The Greenhouse Warming Hype of The Movie The Day After Tomorrow,

There is truth to the greenhouse warming, but the magnitude of the warming is significantly less than computer simulations suggest. Furthermore, scientists need to determine whether the harmful effects will outweigh the beneficial effects. Christians are stewards of the earth; we are supposed to take care of it. Clearly, we need more research, as well as the input of those atmospheric scientists who are skeptical of the claimed large temperature change and the supposed disastrous environmental effects. These atmospheric scientists have mostly been shut out from public discussion of greenhouse warming.

Furthermore, Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. concludes his article, Earth's Climate Thermostat, by saying,

Richard Lindzen's mechanism works differently than the one I proposed ten years ago, but the result is similar. In either case, God has designed the atmosphere to maintain a uniform temperature, whether there is a cooling or a warming tendency. Only under catastrophic conditions will the atmosphere experience major changes. This type of catastrophic event occurred during the Genesis Flood, but this event involved unique conditions not applicable now. Under normal circumstances, God has designed the atmosphere with a built-in thermostat which maintains thermal equilibrium. This climate condition does not lead to a runaway greenhouse or a new ice age. The view of a climate with a built-in thermostat contrasts strongly with the conventional worldview that the atmosphere is unstable and a minor perturbation could lead to a natural catastrophe of either fire or ice.

Could there be political, economical, or some other reason to why there is such concern for global warming? Yes, definitely. If one ignores the Flood and its massive influence and attempts to explain climate change by small astronomical variations, then it is understandable why so much concern is expressed about the recent variations in carbon dioxide on global temperatures. However, if one recognizes the impact of the Flood on geophysical and biological systems, not only during its most active period but also following, these current apocalyptic concerns pale into insignificance. We believe the current attempt to mitigate hypothesized global warming is not supported by the evidence and is premature at best. The real driving force behind the current controversy is politics, not science.

In the example above, Al Gore presented his views about global warming. Some evangelicals began the Evangelical Climate Initiative believing that they were doing the responsible thing in trying to be good stewards of the earth and care for the poor. Instead they are falling into the trap of the liberal media.

In a recent British court ruling, Al Gore’s movie was “judged” to be in error. In an online article (October 9, 2007) entitled Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ Noel Sheppard writes (bold emphasis included in original),

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

·         The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

·         The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

·         The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

·         The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

·         The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

·         The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

·         The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

·         The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

·         The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

·         The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

·         The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

(See also UK Court : Schools Must Warn of Bias in 'An Inconvenient Truth' and Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias.)

For scientific facts about "global warming" please go to the following links:

Earth's Climate Thermostat

Christian reluctance to jump on global warming bandwagon attributed to skepticism of evolution

From Climate Control to Population Control: Troubling Background on the 'Evangelical Climate Initiative' – A Joint Paper of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty.

A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship

The following ICR articles are other sources for global warming questions:

 Are Hurricanes Getting More Destructive? (#390)

The Christian and the Greenhouse Effect (#204)

Was There Really An Ice Age? (#56)

Global Warning and the Flood (#294)

A Faulty Climate Trigger (#261)

The Greenhouse Effect and Pre-Flood Days (#239)

Recommended Books:

An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood by Michael J. Oard

Climates Before and After the Genesis Flood by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.