The Myth of Global Warming (Part 1) - By Dr. Ron J. Bigalke - Eternal Ministries www.bibleprophecyblog.

.com The Evangelical Climate Initiative is a group of senior evangelical leaders in the United States who are convinced it is time for our country to help solve the problem of global warming. [1] The Initiative seeks to accomplish their stated goal by creating jobs, cleaning the environment, and enhancing national security by reducing dependence upon foreign oil. The Initiatives goal is to help create a safe and healthy environment for future generations. The first of four urgent claims by the Evangelical Climate Initiative is the assertion that human-induced climate change is real. The problem with the Initiative is that global warming is a myth. Global warming is nothing more than a political agenda that has infiltrated evangelicalism. The church, therefore, should be concerned with regard to the global lukewarming of churchianity. Jesus warned the church, I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth (Rev 3:15-16). The concern of this writer is that those who are involved in the Evangelical Climate Initiative are becoming cold to proclaiming the Gospel and are seeking to make disciples by proclaiming temporal, planetary issues to be more important - which are actually fabrications - than eternal issues such as the destiny of the souls of human beings. The majority of environmental policies are based upon myths. Only four of the most common will be addressed in this article. The First Myth of Global Warming The first myth is that scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Ground-level temperature measurements seem to indicate that the Earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850. Global satellite data, however, is the most reliable of climate measurements, and it has not demonstrated any evidence of warming since 1979. Moreover, even if the Earths temperature increased slightly, such an increase is within the natural range of known temperature variation for the past thousand years. Actually, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries (viz. the medieval warm period); this period was a time of unusually warm weather that began approximately AD 1000 and continued until a cold period known as the Little Ice Age appeared in the 14th and 15th centuries. A warmer climate resulted in a remarkable increase of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe. Agriculture thrived as the temperature increased. Marshes and swamps were dry, which eliminated the breeding of mosquitoes that spread malaria. Former wetlands were converted to productive farmland. Infant mortality decreased, and the population increased. From the 12th to the 14th centuries, the population of Europe increased from approximately 40 to 60 million. Between the 10th and 15th centuries, vineyards thrived in England, and Vikings from Iceland colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada. The Greenland settlements reached a height of prosperity in the 12th and 13th centuries, when 3,000 colonists occupied 280 farms. The settlements experienced difficulty in the late 14th century as a

consequence of the beginning of Little Ice Age cooling; they finally perished in the 15th century. The warming that humanity is experiencing today is simply the result of emergence from the Little Ice Age (which was close to the time of the founding of our nation). The existence of the medieval warm period was recognized in the climate textbooks for decades. It is, however, a major embarrassment to those maintaining that 20th and 21st century warming is indeed abnormal. In 1998, Michael Mann (an American physicist and climatologist, who is currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) reworked the temperature data (what is called the Hockey Stick in scientific circles due to its shape), and contradicted the immense majority of historical sources with regard to the medieval warm period. The Clinton administration, which was probably significantly influenced by Vice President Gore, used Manns modified graph for the United States climate assessment report in 2000. Mann was named as a lead author of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report published in 2001 and an editor of The Journal of Climate. However, two Canadian statisticians - Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick - were persistent in their demands to examine the data Mann used. Eventually and quite reluctantly, it was provided. They discovered and subsequently published a remarkable critique that faulted the Hockey Stick analysis for collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, and incorrect calculation of principle components. The irony of global warming scare tactics is that a slightly warmer climate with an increase in carbon dioxide is in several manners beneficial to the earth, as opposed to being damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that moderate warming and higher carbon dioxide levels will increase the total value of all final goods and services (GNP), and will increase standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. Obviously, Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth did not indicate any of these advantages. Homes in the north could have heating fuel savings. Farmers in Canada could harvest bumper crops. Greenland could become richly supplied in cod and oil riches. Shippers could rely upon an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Forests could expand. Mongolia could become a powerful nation economically. Please note that the word could has been employed toward possible benefits, which means this author is expressing possibilities; however, the point is that there may be future benefits for frigid regions of Canada and Russia (i.e., not that challenges in those countries will be eradicated, but the gains, especially in agriculture, could be greater than the losses). Economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, studied how various warming scenarios from now until 2100 could affect the gross domestic product. The conclusion of his research is that Canada and Russia could have tremendous advantages, in addition to northern Europe and Mongolia, primarily as a result of projected increases in agricultural production. Global climate was drastically changed in the Fall and the Flood - two of the three greatest ecological acts in history - and will be changed again at the return of Christ, when He establishes the millennial kingdom and the eternal state thereafter. By Gods grace, humanity adapted and will continue to do so.

The Second Myth of Global Warming The second myth is that humanity is the cause for global warming. The evidence for such an assertion is minuscule. Scientists do not agree that humanity has exerted any discernible influence upon global climate. Those scientific experts who are most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the assertion that humanity is the cause for global warming by a wide margin. According to a Gallup Poll, only 17% of the members of the Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Society believe that current global warming is the result of greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. carbon dioxide, primarily from burning fossil fuels): 83% disagree. It is true that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 28% in the past 160 or so years, but the amount of carbon dioxide generated by humanity is minuscule to any global warming because the majority of the warming occurred prior to 1940, prior to carbon dioxide emissions from human beings. Greenhouse theory is a lying metaphor. Global warming theory assumes the Earth is naturally in a state of global energy balance (i.e. absorbed sunlight = emitted infrared). In an attempt to seize public approval, buzzwords or catchy metaphors are used. Such is the reality with metaphors, such as greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect. Argument by metaphor is always dangerous and misleading. The greenhouse metaphor is used to promote the idea that putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will make the earth more like a greenhouse, and consequently, this will increase global temperature. (Perhaps it would be beneficial to state at this moment that temperature is a statistic, not an actual measurement. Actually, the major historical unknown is how to define what is normal. In other words, what is a global average temperature? What are the normal [pre-industrial age] variations? It is impossible to specify any human caused effect upon the global temperature unless these questions can be answered. Therefore, the psychology behind global warming is to sell bad news [and also generates much funding; always follow the money].) The greenhouse metaphor is fundamentally inaccurate for two reasons. Firstly, greenhouses are not notoriously high in carbon dioxide levels; rather, they are characterized by lack of carbon dioxide, which can hinder plant growth. The reason is that the plants absorb carbon dioxide; therefore, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not make the earth more like a greenhouse, which generally has less carbon dioxide than the outside air, especially in winter months. The presence of carbon dioxide is not what makes a greenhouse warmer than the outside air. Secondly, greenhouses do not function like the atmosphere. There are other aspects involved, such as fluid dynamics and infrared radiation. A greenhouse controls fluid dynamical energy drain from the surface by placing something like glass or plastic above the plants, which allows inbound solar radiation to pass through the glass or plastic, but air cannot. If the flow balance between dynamical energy and infrared radiation is halted, then the greenhouse is heated. Greenhouses are not warm because they trap infrared radiation, but that is the issue that global warming advocates want the public to believe. It is simply impossible to halt the release of energy from the earth through fluid dynamics. Greenhouses are controlled to produce certain heating, but the planet is not. The Earth cannot and never will be a greenhouse because it is impossible to control fluid dynamical flow. To assert otherwise is not science, but religious faith.

The Third Myth of Global Warming The third myth is that government must intervene to stop global warming. The idea behind this myth is that the consequences of inaction will be catastrophic; therefore, prudence demands immediate government action. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predication of warming is correct, delaying drastic government actions by even 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and tremendous economic harm. Conversely, delaying action until there is more evidence of human-caused global warming, and better technology to mitigate it, is both a positive environmental and economic response. Government attempts to control so-called greenhouse gas emissions are vacuous and unnecessary. Nevertheless, there are state governors demanding carbon dioxide emissions limits on automobiles; there are major cities demanding mandatory carbon dioxide controls; the Supreme Court recently declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that may need to be regulated; with the exception of the United States and a few small countries, every industrialized nation has signed the Kyoto Protocol; and, there are persistent international demands for even more rigorous regulations when the Kyoto Protocol expires. It seems, though, that some global warming advocates are not so serious with regard to anti-warming policies. For example, one feature of the Kyoto Protocol is called the Clean Development Mechanism. As defined in Article 12 of the Protocol, this mechanism allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to implement an emission-reduction project in developing countries. What this means is that a carbon dioxide emitter (i.e. an energy user) is allowed to support an unconvincing reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to continue emitting carbon dioxide. For those countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the Emissions Trading mechanism allows for them to sell excess capacity to countries that have exceeded their targets. In many situations, the initial quota was simply given by governments to power companies and other entities, which then collected a windfall profit from consumers. It should be obvious that these policies result in tremendous finances for those involved. However, these schemes (even in theory) are simply fraudulent because they do not reduce total carbon dioxide emissions. It is also noteworthy that there are direct benefits to tens of thousands of interested people to perpetuate all the global warming scare tactics; this, of course, is at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Global environmental organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club have profited billions of dollars. There are multi-billion dollar government subsidies, which are continually getting larger, for ineffective and ineffectual mitigation schemes. Emission trading programs will soon generate profits of $100 billion yearly, with sizeable fees paid to brokers and those who regulate these programs. Certainly you, the reader, are intelligent enough to understand that there are many individuals who are benefiting from climate scare tactics and who obviously have an ensconced interest. The reverse is also true, though. There are many sincere individuals who believe that a global warming catastrophe is imminent, and whose fears are encouraged by the increasing volume of biased and prejudiced books,

movies, and media coverage. The Fourth Myth of Global Warming The fourth myth is that global warming caused by humanity will culminate in cataclysmic environmental problems (e.g. higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity). Although sea levels are increasing globally, it is not uniform. Sea levels have increased more than 300 feet over the past thousand years, which is a natural phenomenon in between ice ages. Contrary to global warming predictions, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate for the past thousand years. It is common knowledge that tropical storms are dependent upon warm ocean surface temperatures (a minimum of 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. The reasoning is that global warming is the cause of increased ocean surface temperatures, and consequently an increased uptake of moisture and therefore destructive hurricanes. With regard to a supposed increase in hurricane activity, the scientific data does not indicate any increase in the number or severity of tropical storms. It is important to recognize that other factors such as wind speeds at various altitudes are also conducive to hurricane activity. There are variations other than warming. Are there other effects of warming? If a minimal atmospheric warming occurred, the effect would be primarily upon nighttime temperatures, which would lessen the number of winter nights and extend the growing season. Actually, as already stated, scientists believe that global warming would be beneficial to agriculture, because historically warm periods have been most conducive to life. The fears of a global warming apocalypse are invalid. Therefore, hasty and ignorant legislation must be recognized as a political agenda. However, also consider the logical contradiction among global warming advocates. We are told that human beings are no different than any other life form, and therefore we certainly are not superior. Conversely, we are told that humanity is superior and capable because we can study and predict climate change, and can halt the end of the world. Conclusion The evidence of science and history is not in favor of global warming. The more that individuals understand the information presented in this article and communicate the actual facts to others, the myths of global warming will subside. The response of the church must not be apprehension; rather, it would be good to sing the childrens song, Hes Got the Whole World in His Hands, because this truth is communicated throughout Scripture, especially in Isaiah 40. Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and marked off the heavens by the span, and calculated the dust of the earth by the measure, and weighed the mountains in a balance and the hills in a pair of scales? The answer is no human being. God, however, does these things! Endnote

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] Evangelical Climate Initiative, Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action (January 2006) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Myth of Global Warming (Part 2) - By Dr. Ron J. Bigalke - Eternal Ministries www.bibleprophecyblog.com During the 50s and 60s, the secular worldview was that things functioned from a naturalistic and materialistic base. The belief that God is dead produced a hope in science and technology to bring utopia to the Earth. The 70s, however, introduced a paradigm shift in thinking. The fruits of technology had the potential for completely eradicating mankind. At this period in time, mankind developed the technology to destroy the entire Earth with weapons of mass destruction. The 80s witnessed an acute awareness that a radical solution needed to be implemented; this solution was not to be limited geographically, but would affect the entire global community. Crises such as global warming and ozone depletion were impacting the community. The only remedy is proclaimed to be the implementation of global solutions for the entire planet. In the past two decades, the cry has been for a spiritual solution to global issues. Former Vice President Al Gore has been outspoken in his belief that the only solution to ecological problems is a spiritual response common to all religions. Evolution is believed to be the foundation for an ecumenical faith that will unite science and religion toward the salvation of the Earth from ecological disaster; the worship of Mother Earth as the goddess Gaia is the next step. Once humanity understands our relationship to Gaia, self-reflexive consciousness toward the Earth becomes the priority. Some of the global warming advocates have even defined the production of carbon dioxide as sin, which means all humanity is guilty of a holocaust-like assault upon planet Earth. Of course, it is impossible to repent of this sin because one cannot live without putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The next stage in this godless belief system is to extend mans consciousness in such a manner as to unite man and nature, at the expense of self-consciousness (this idolization of nature is quite common of the occult). For instance, shamans believe that the spirit world is in direct connection with the Earth itself. Shamans affirm belief in humanitys deeply spiritual relationship with Nature. Once humanity returns to nature worship, then the Earth will be saved; it is this pagan ideology that is integral to the global warming theory. Pagan Superstition

What is occurring in the world today is not only a return to pagan superstitions, but also a momentum for a single global vision, toward a central principle for organizing the global community in order to save the environment (i.e. the institution of a global eco-regime). Former Vice President Al Gore received applause from both gurus and shamans for his book, Earth in the Balance, even though he was deeply critical of conservative Christians. Gore demonstrated his fervent support of Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American Spiritism, and the global environment crisis. The need for a balance between humanity and the environment is due to an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is for lack of a better word, spiritual! While Christianity is deplorable, Native American religions offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth. When President Franklin Pierce wanted to buy the land of Chief Seattle and his tribe, the Chief wanted to know, Will you teach your children what we have taught our children. That the earth is our mother? This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. To prevent an apocalypse, Americans have to be educated so the public understands the threat of global warming. However, as scientists have consistently proven, the supposed global warming threat is itself nothing more than foolish speculation. Reports from the National Climatic Data Center state that there is no substantial proof of global warming. There are simply too many natural climate variations - which have nothing to do with humans.. . . Moreover, the problem with attempts to equate climate change to carbon dioxide variations over time, is that to do so would require creating models that demand many variables to be transformed into constants for any modeling to be possible. However, if certain numbers are changed, then models can predict anything. In this simple model, you can also get cooling by allowing a small variation in the fraction of sunlight that is reflected before it gets into the system. And there are other arbitrary fixed things that can be changed too, to get nearly any outcome at all. [1] The output of the model is determined by factors based upon the person creating the model, by their decision to state what to make important and which arbitrarily fixed things will be made constant. The models cannot be regarded as equal to real climate, and therefore, they do not have any predictive power in the real world. What can be known with certainty? The models show surface warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of their programming. They could yield surface cooling with different programming, without violating any physical law. All that is required is to allow things to change in the model that do, in fact, change in the atmosphere. [2] Due to lack of knowledge (nescience), we cannot believe in global warming. However, advocates of the theory demand our response in the absence of knowledge, which is the definition of blind faith (and as always, doing things blindly is dangerous, if not deadly). Biblical Revelation It is prudent to consider how pagan superstition, which is inherent to global warming theories, relates to special revelation (Scripture). God has revealed information with regard to Himself and the reality of a spiritual world beyond our own. We do not know these things based upon observation; rather, we know and believe these things based upon the fact that God has spoken. If God did not reveal the truth regarding His existence

and nature, and other spiritual and eternal matters, we would not be any different from the pagans who use their imaginations to determine reality. Demanding a response based upon lack of knowledge is a crucial matter for us to consider as Christians. For example, if someone asked the names and orders of all the angels in heaven, we would have to confess we only know the names Gabriel and Michael, and that Michael is called the archangel. We could not answer any further than what God has revealed. The global warming advocates who demand action based upon lack of knowledge should not motivate us. At best, they are chicken littles and at worst, they are spiritual deceivers (false prophets). These advocates would have us believe certain things regarding the world that God has created, yet their assertions cannot be known. To demand action based upon lack of knowledge with regard to creation (the general revelation) is unwarranted and should not motivate us. It is impossible to be held accountable for something that cannot be known. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20). God holds all humanity accountable because the knowledge of His existence is evident. Conversely, one cannot be held accountable for lack of knowledge, or what cannot be known. The global warming advocates who claim to know what they cannot know, and demand obedience to their so-called knowledge, are deceived and deceiving with regard to the natural revelation. We should not listen to them, any more than we would obey the claims of a cult leader, such as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Essentially, the environmental movement is not primarily about climate concerns; rather, it is a spiritual movement. God warned mankind with regard to those who have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever (Rom 1:25). Contrary to worshiping the creation, the Creator commanded, Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him (Ps 33:8). The environmental movement seeks to unite all religions to save the planet, which means the worlds religions must ignore doctrinal differences and unite as one to inaugurate a new spirituality. Christians can be concerned for the environment, but must not let ecology take precedence to fulfilling the Great Commission. The concerns of the environmental movement should be an opportunity to explain the cause and only solution, who is Jesus Christ. Of course, anyone that disagrees with ecologists is thought of as a hindrance to the evolution of mankind. The momentum is for mankind to embrace a goddess religion, which was eliminated by Christianity, because such an understanding of Mother

Goddess offers us new insights into the nature of the human experience. The ethical and moral issues promoted by ecology, constitute an anti-Christian agenda that seeks to eliminate knowledge of God while polluting the souls of the collective. The church needs to guard the revelation of God, which has been given authoritatively, and reject falsely named knowledge (1 Tim 6:20). God and the Environment Creation is subject to the ongoing sovereign and providential governance of God. Psalm 104:4 reads, He makes the winds His messengers, flaming fire His minister. The Psalmist stated that the winds do not blow by chance, and lightning does not flash by an accidental impulse. God, in the exercise of his sovereign power, rules and controls all the disturbances of the atmosphere. The creation is not infused with the necessary inherent energy to sustain itself, absent from divine providence; rather, it is Gods sustaining activity that governs the world. It is contrary to Scripture to represent God as a momentary Creator, who completed His work once for all, and then left it. Considering this point especially, the church must dissent from the profane, and maintain that the presence of Gods power is evident, not less in the perpetual condition of the world than in its first creation. Even though God commanded humanity in the pre-Fall period to maintain the quality of the creation, it is God who ultimately controls and cares for it, both directly and indirectly. God created the world, and even now He preserves it; the earth and all other things endure just in as far as they are sustained by Gods power. God is not only the Creator of this Earth, but also its Sustainer. Colossians 1:16-17 teaches, For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. God sustains our Earth; humanity is not powerful otherwise. We are to be good stewards of Gods creation. Global warming, however, lacks conclusive scientific data and is capitalizing upon peoples fears with unsubstantiated and exaggerated information. As biblical Christians, we must have the spiritual and intellectual courage to learn from the Word of God with regard to the great implications for whatever our situation demands. Nature is not better without humanity, contrary to global warming extremists. Man is the steward of nature under God. The only basis for science (as the early scientists knew) is the set of conditions provided in the Word of God (viz. a nature ruled by rational purpose, a mind designed to interpret nature - under the authority of special revelation as almost all early scientists believed). While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease (Gen 8:22)

. As the Bible declares, nature has been designed for a purpose - to bear witness to our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. It is through nature that His sovereign providence affects the affairs of mankind, that unbelieving man might blindly fumble for Him and find Him. It is not some imagined, vague set of natural laws that controls nature; rather, it is Gods contracts or covenants, covenants revealed explicitly in Scripture. In faithfulness to the Noahic Covenant, God has said, I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth (Gen 9:13). Conclusion Christians should certainly be concerned with regard to the environment. Creation is the handiwork of God. However, God is separate and distinct from His creation. He created all things, but God is not all things. It is because God created all things that Christians are responsible to care for the environment. The worship of nature is, of course, pagan idolatry (Rom 1:18-32). The solution to the problem is not an eco-agenda; rather, the answer is entering into a relationship with Jesus Christ as God and Savior. Man must not fall into the folly of worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. Furthermore, the Christian mandate is not to save the earth, but to be active in proclaiming the Gospel so that souls may be saved, and making disciples of those who have been saved. Christ said that He was not of this world (John 8:23). Indeed, this world is reserved unto fire against the day of judgment (2 Pet 3:7). The folly of adopting an earth-based salvation is to commit spiritual suicide. Christians need to be active as good stewards of Gods creation, but more so in explaining to a world that is perishing that the solution to mans dilemma is to be found in Jesus Christ. Endnotes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2007) 246. [2] Ibid