Global Warming, or futile thinking?

Global Warming and the Christian Worldview

Tom King - [and you thought I was all done].

“We should care about the world that ‘gave us life.’”[1] “We should leave a better place for our children and their children.” “Our generation is selfishly expending all of nature’s resources, taking them from future generations.” These are the sorts of remarks we hear those, even in the church, saying over and over again. This has been brought to our attention most recently by the media and the “Greenies”[2] led by those in the likes of former Vice President Al Gore.

For sure, as Christians we should be concerned about God’s creation and the future of that creation for our children. For sure, narcissism should be combated in the life of the Christian. But does this mean complete submission to the proclaimed state of affairs that the conservationists claim? Does this mean billions of added tax dollars should be accrued in order to bring the average degree down ½ percent each year? Or should the Christian life affirm present utilitarian concerns while maintaining a biblical view of stewardship in action along with the reality of a fallen world in regards to Romans 8? This submission will argue for the latter position.

To add to the dilemma, it will be difficult to deal with the facts, as most proclaimed “facts” are really interpretations of the facts. These interpretations are always based upon a certain belief system and cannot be fully understood without that context. National Geographic states these ‘facts’ on their recent publication updated on June 14, 2007:

Is It Happening?
Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change.
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching - or die-off in response to stress - ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.[3]

But what are “the” facts and how do we discern them? This paper is too short to care for all of National Geographic's concerns, but some will be treated. In all of this we must be able discern, as Scripture clearly tells us to “test all things” (I Thess. 5:21). The word dokimazete from dokimazw is often translated as “test” or “prove,” to “examine, interpret or discern.” Paul is even more helpful in 2 Corinthians 10 and Colossians 2 where he points us to bringing all things to Christ.

But what would it mean to bring all things to Christ? Here we turn to Paul’s words in Romans 12 which teach us that we will be able to test[4] and approve what is God’s “good, pleasing and perfect will” after our minds are transformed and renewed. This transformation takes place when the Holy Spirit, through the Word, Christ’s Word, the Word made flesh Word, is understood and applied correctly. May God’s Holy Spirit be with us as we seek to accomplish this.

As Paul commands, let us “hold on to that which is good.” Throughout history, we should note weather conditions that may be relevant to this topic. For example, one historic weather forecast found, coming from Newsweek, is noteworthy.

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

The interesting part of this article, which was published on April 25th of 1975, is that the opening sentence read ‘The Cooling World’! It is interesting and important to note that many meteorologists and others believed we were going into another ice age only 3 decades ago. Likewise, National Geographic commented on the topic.

“During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”[5]

Not only is this the same sort of alarmism as we hear today with global warming, but this change is only three decades ago, which as we will see, contradicts their commentary today. This commentary from the global warming environmentalists would have us believe that our present condition of rising temperature is irreversible and damaging, and this information includes the last 150 years, even the portion three decades ago. Could they have been that wrong? Is there something else to consider? What do we do with this seemingly clash of information?

In 2003, a team of scientists at Harvard University reviewed the global warming argument and a report on their final position said:

“The review, by a Harvard University team… proves that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s.”[6]

This team of Harvard University scientists examined 1,000 years of global temperatures and reviewed more than 240 scientific journals from the past 40 years and concluded that despite man’s influence on our environment, current temperatures are not as warm as during the Middle Ages. Also according to the study, a global medieval warming period lasting from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was followed by a Little Ice Age between the years of 1300 to 1900. The study also states that the earth has been warming slightly since 1900.

“The study is significant because it refutes the notion that current temperatures are the warmest ever and calls into question much of the warming effect caused by the so-caled greenhouse gases from industrial plants and automobiles.”[7]

Of course, there are many other scientists aside of this group that are equally concerned with the possible greenhouse propaganda. Dr. Bob Carter, a geologist with James Cook University, describes himself as a “climate agnostic” with an open mind who is ready to be convinced, but doesn’t see any great reason as of yet. He is also concerned about the recent language used by the climate change alarmists. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at the releasing of the Stern report that the report had “demolished the last remaining argument for inaction in the face of climate change.” Dr. Carter says that such statements are highly misleading and that global warming remains “hugely contentious.”

Dr. Carter, like a growing number of concerned scientists regarding this alarmism, concludes this propaganda to be nothing more than a money maker. He argues that the Stern report, Stern himself an economist, relates all the information to economic struggles and comes quite shy of strong scientific evidence for upholding the alarmist view. Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT agrees strongly. Dr. Carter also believes that the political movement is skewed for the upcoming elections. It also is his consideration that giving certain “needed” carbon levies for imported goods would even out the more efficient competition. For example, New Zealand kiwi fruits are transported by ship, yet arrive in Britain at a price that undercuts local supplies. “No wonder a levy is needed” comments Dr. Carter.[8]

NASA’s Michael Griffin, responding to Bush’s recent join to the global warming fight proposed for 2012, said, “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem [global warming] we must wrestle with.”[9] Included in the long list of scientists that disagree with the alarmism are the many found in the recent documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which aired on British television channel 4 on Thursday, March 8th at 9 p.m.[10]

Many of the arguments concerning the scientific approach of the warming alarmists seem assume that rising carbon dioxide levels is the correct interpretation of a rising temperature globally. But many scientists who object point to the vast research, over many years, that show global warming has more correlation with sun radiation levels emitted to our planet, which fluctuate and even seem to have a cyclical effect. Also, most agree that human emissions of carbon dioxide, even in and after the industrial age, are miniscule in comparison to natural emissions. One strong volcanic burst can put more carbon dioxide in the air than the entire human population of the world was estimated in doing for the whole 20th century.

Another problem with the theory, as suggested by the Harvard team and others, is the evidence which suggests that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years, so it cannot be the cause of it. Many records exist which prove glacier advancement during the years of the “Little Ice Age,” including places like Switzerland in 1595, France in 1600-1610, and the Eastern Alps in the 1670’s and 1680’s, Iceland in 1695-1709, Norway in 1710-1735, in which one glacier is reported to advance at the rate of 100 meters each year. The annual Thames fair had its last hurrah in 1814, at least on the river itself. What does all this have to do with our topic?

“Records used by (modern) climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise.”[11]

Unfortunately, climatologists have not fully considered the reasoning behind finding palm trees frozen in the arctic regions, why camel fossils are found in cold regions, or any other anomaly found today using uniformitarian thinking. But thinking about climate changes in regard to a destructive world-wide flood may bring to light many of these anomalies, although St. Peter warns us:

ESV 2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

Sadly, the article “Is God Green” recently published in The Lutheran Witness seems to give more credit due to the global warming fanatics than most will be able to discern. It is not clear that the author is a global warming proponent, but the writing does not clearly define where the Christian can and should stand on the issue, only pointing to our God-given role of caring for creation, which is indisputable. Worse case scenario, using the propaganda that “Christianity is largely to blame for environmental problems” could easily lead readers to believe that Dr. White Jr. was correct, since author Matthew Nelson never gets back to this ‘critical event’ in his past to discern it for the reader. Worse, he adds to Dr. White’s implications by saying later in the article:

“While some may deny that there is anything to be concerned about, most of us recognize that our collective pressure on creation has stressed it to varying degrees in various geographic locations. Add to this a volatile mix of science, personal values, and economics, and the issues relating to the environment are sure to explode again and again.”[12]

Even if the reader might get the right idea somehow, it gives the concerned citizen no help in discerning how conscious one should be of everyday decisions that could possibly “effect global warming” or how to be proactive with daily living instructions that are backed by good scientific and Scriptural references. It doesn’t help much.

I am all for fulfilling our Genesis 2 role of caring for the earth. But, as Jesus, I am all the more concerned about people and ministry than keeping this earth in pristine condition, for even Jesus will destroy this earth by fire. Not even mentioning the realities behind carbon emissions and global warming, I believe I could winsomely argue that creating more carbon emissions is actually reflecting God’s thinking in Romans 8 which says:

ESV Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

The fuels that are most attacked for putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere includes oil, coal and gas. It must also be noted that a Christian view regarding the bulk of formation of these fuels comes from organic tissue, mostly plant, animal and people who died in the flood during the days of Noah. This tissue was destroyed because of God’s pain-filled heart and His reaction to man’s constantly evil inclinations and wickedness. This evil was judged and destroyed, which was consequently formed into the fossil fuels we utilize today.

I would argue that, like God, we utilize these fuels [without great detriment to the world’s climate] in a Romans 8 way by using them to care for people and their needs; a mother who uses a car to get groceries or a gas stove to cook dinner, a father who drives his family to church, a neighbor who uses a gas-powered mower to cut a friend’s lawn, a pastor who drives daily to care for shut-ins or make hospital calls. These are all valid and important uses of once sin-ridden and wicked flesh, at least the human part. But just as God seeks to work all for good, we should utilize the final structure of their flesh [to fossil fuels] in order to care for people today.

But this is not what comes out of the general reading of the article found in The Lutheran Witness. In fact, if anything, we read that we should be more ecocentric[13] and not anthropocentric in the civic realm. Although Matthew tritely begins with Christocentric and ends with ‘the neighbor,’ everything in between calls for a better ecocentric mentality, which takes precedent in the argument, all the while assuming that carbon dioxide levels are actually causing the environmental problem, one among many, in global warming as it regards to the “Greenies” arguments. This is his connection to the liberal argument of the “Greenies.” This is not only highly problematic in its suggestion, but misleading, confusing and divisive in its approach to the subject for the average reader who cannot separate these issues and discern fact from interpretation.[14]

He is also absolutely wrong about the badness of the law from the civic realm’s view, but is in a large crowd of Lutherans today who are more antinomian in their approach to live “for the sake of the gospel,” just not their own sake in relation to God.[15] It is quite ironic that “the proper motivation for the work of caring for the creation is a response to the Gospel – a response to the love we were first shown in Christ” when we then must assume by this statement that the first 4,000 years or so never cared for creation since the “love of Christ” had not been revealed yet. So Matthew either must wrongly argue that the work of the Law somehow took place in gospel form in the Old Testament or that no person, even no Israelite, ever followed the command given to Adam in the garden or any other commands to the Old Testament "faithful." Although I know that the Israelites did hope in a Savior, it is unlikely that this unrevealed person would be the object of their “proper motivation” to care for the commands given their forefathers. That might be a contentious argument to hold firmly.

Of course, Americans are always prone to going ‘over the top,’ so a good conversation could be had in what someone drives as opposed to if someone drives. Do we need that V12 Jaguar to drive 50 miles one-way to work everyday? Does the gas-guzzling SUV need to be the transportation of the single woman/man getting around town? Stewardship should always be addressed, but this does not require total abstinence of such resources. Matthew seems to forget that people matter most to God, which is why animals were constantly sacrificed in our place for roughly 4,000 years.[16] Although Matthew states “neighbor” all the time, the underlying principle for his paper suggests that we are not living for our neighbor while the alarmists tell us that the earth, its environment and its inhabitants (mostly concerning is the polar bear[17] among animal species), is crashing. But to assume that we must “save the world” for our neighbor is just not biblical.

I appreciate the post-article post online by Jim Roane, Ph.D., especially as it pertains to Matthew’s struggle to love the neighbor by saving the world, who suggests:

“When I studied meteorology, and worked briefly in the field, I recall at the time that meteorologists were seriously warning against a new Ice Age – which, incidentally, is still a popular theory among some. Now, we have politicians playing the role of scientist and adding more chaos to the confusion. I say, enough already! Let’s stick with the Scripture which says, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:22 AMP)[18]

God’s Word is a good place to seek advice on this particular subject. The earth will remain until Christ’s second coming. Consequently, the next time you attend a Gore “Live Earth” concert [for a climate change], keep in mind whose mind is running the show. Is it God’s, or is this interpretation of facts man’s fallible idea? The Words of Christ, like the Genesis text referred to above, as well as the many texts which state that the second coming of Christ will be unannounced for the fire judgment, indicate that this “irreversible warming problem” is not the problem it is cracked up to be, especially in light of the common interpretative disagreement in data and cause of this warming trend.

Do the right thing. Care for your neighbor. This includes recycling and questioning diapers, but above all, caring for your neighbor’s eternal destination and ministering to him at any opportunity provided. Jesus did, and will, as the earth remains:

ESV 2 Peter 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

If that means driving 1800 extra miles one-way to dialogue and comfort a friend in need, it is gas and carbon dioxide well spent. People are first in God’s eyes and ours too. Let Scripture lead the way and provide the context to proper discernment on environmentalism, not a mixing of such and global warming alarmist reasoning.[19]

[1] Absurdity at the highest level would be the assumption that the coming together of chemicals by random chance would bring about any moral highground which could be anything but self-serving from an evolutionary humanistic uniformitarian point of view. Micheal Shermer, who could don for an atheist priest, is working on a book in relation to this topic. It should be an interesting read, but one, nonetheless, riddled with presuppositions and religious assumptions as it exegetes life.
[2] An endearing term used within the environmentalist circle referring to their participation in keeping the earth “green” at all costs.
[3] This list is taken from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/
1206_041206_global_warming.html - which was updated last on June 14th, 2007.
[4] This is the same Greek word as above.
[5] National Geographic, What’s Happening to Our Climate?, Nov. 1976, pp. 576-615.
[6] The Age, So What’s Happening…?, Melbourne, Australia, April 7, 2003. Research casts doubt on global warming theory.
[7] CNSNews.com, New Harvard Study Heats up ‘Global Warming’ Debate, April 8, 2003, by Marc Morano.
[8] The Australian, Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics, Nov. 3, 2006.
[9] Michael Griffin stated this in a conversation on NPR regarding Bush’s fight for climate change statement set for 2012 after the Kyoto Protocol lapses on March 31, 2007.
[10] This can be viewed here: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/
great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
[11] The Age, So What’s Happening…?, Melbourne, Australia, April 7, 2003. Research casts doubt on global warming theory.
[12] This comes from the May 2007 Lutheran Witness, Vol. 126.
[13] Ecocentric is defined as “intrinsic value in wildlife and wild land” leading to the making of laws to protect these necessities.
[14] Matthew himself has difficulty separating and discerning these differences.
[15] Of course, Matthew could be meaning that we are not moved to any good work Coram Deo, which would be correct. But postulating the words he used to the average reader will only suggest antinomianism and not a clear understanding of “good works” in the two realms. This is just another example of how the two realms idea is poorly taught and even abused by leading ‘Lutherans’ today.
[16] This of course began with the slaughter of the first animal in the garden in order for God to provide the animal skins to cover Adam and his wife’s sinfulness and guilt.
[17] A strong argument against the concern of ‘losing the polar bear’ is made by some scientists who have revealed that the polar bear is a mutated brown bear. The white hair of the polar bear is a result of a degenerate mutational loss of genetic information for pigment. Therefore, even if all polar bears did cease to exist, it would only be a matter of time and natural selection (from a biblical view) that would bring this mutated species back into existence. Although, our category of species is not the same as God’s category of kind, we would only lose a species, not a kind. Not to be too trite, but we might have a better perspective on this matter if we were more concerned about people than a species that may never go extinct other than the possibility of brown bears going extinct first. This author does not see too many people actively working to save the feather duster mutant budgie (bird). Although not perfectly complimentary, there is some correlation. Read more at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/budgie.asp.
[18] This posting made on July 7, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. replying to an article written by Jim Brown from OneNewsNow.com on the same day.
[19] If God doesn’t think man is the culmination of his creation, then why the focus in Genesis 2, why are we made in His image, why are unblemished animals sacrificed are our behalf for 4,000 years? This does not allow us to abuse or misuse his creation, but the Christian should keep a more intact biblical perspective than Matthew overwhelmingly suggests.