Global Warming

[Soldier4Christ]

The enemies of free speech are on the march
Start thinking the way we order you to--or else


The president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has written a threatening letter to a scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) warning him to stop publicly criticizing the theory that global warming is a threat to the planet, or risk the end of his reputation.

Implicit in the message: Shut up or you will be destroyed.

The threat

A July 13 letter from ACORE President Michael T. Eckhart to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis did not mince words:

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Eckhart graciously wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and a charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

CEI does not dispute the existence of climate change. However, it differs sharply from the enviro alarmist community (such as ACORE) as to the causes and the imminence of the threat.

In a hearing July 26, Senator James Inhofe, ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, confronted Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson with the letter. ACORE is an EPA member.

Johnson replied that statements like this "are of concern to me," and promised to look into the matter.

Senator Inhofe, who has taken his share of flak for his intrepid exposures of the "global warming," fraud knows firsthand the backlash from those who don't want to hear any dissent. His colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer — the new chairman of the committee — gaveled him down when the Oklahoma senator tried to pose a question to the alarmist-in-chief Al Gore. After all, Mr. Gore has arrogantly proclaimed "the debate is over," so woe be unto anyone daring to (gasp!) question him.

Just a private little note, senator

Eckhart wrote Inhofe a letter the next day complaining that his threatening letter was just "private jousting" and that "[n]one of this was intended for the public." Further, Eckhart protested, "I am embarrassed to have the private e-mail given to the public, and wish your staff had inquired with me before conducting a hearing."

We will not go into detail here as to whether a direct threat in writing qualifies as "a degree of private jousting." Nor will we elaborate on the widespread understanding that when you commit anything to paper or e-mail, you should do so on the assumption that it may be made public. Someone from the "Harvard community" ought to be smart enough to understand that.

Moreover, Myron Ebell — CEI's Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy — tells me that Eckhart has previously written or otherwise communicated with CEI concerning this matter ever since Lewis bested him in a TV debate on global warming, and this may be what really sticks in his craw. He defines Eckhart's letter to Lewis as "essentially blackmail." Lewis firmly believes what he says and, adds the CEI director, "has the facts to back it up."

Union of Concerned Propagandists

The most active group seeking to stifle dissent on global warming is the infamous Union of Concerned Scientists, whose findings are reliably of the "we're-all-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket" variety. As Ebell charged in an article he co-authored for Capital Research Center, UCS has for almost four decades "manipulated the high reputation of 'science' to serve the low ends of politics."

Concerned about what?

Last year, UCS launched an all-out attack on Exxon Mobil for its contributions to so-called "front groups" who oppose Al Gore's alarmist agenda. In so doing, the political attack dogs disguised as "scientists" compared Exxon to the cigarette companies.

The federal government spends $2 billion (with a b) each year on its Climate Science Change program. Exxon's annual contribution expenditure of $2 million (with an m) is chicken feed by comparison.

Aside from that, what is the real issue that causes the UCS to be "concerned?" Perhaps it is "concerned" that — an all-too-willing media echo chamber notwithstanding — the public may come to realize that UCS's scientific credentials, to put it charitably, are rather thin. It gets its money from powerful anti-free enterprise foundations and from Hollywood stars who apparently believe their celebrity status bestows upon them the gift of genius.

The UCS has a long history of alarmism, not only on global warming, but other issues as well, always in sync with extreme anti-growth environmentalism. It is highly partisan, and its senior staff is made up of politically liberal policy wonks from Washington more than the scientific community. You want to be a "concerned scientist?" They'll be happy to take your money. Just send them $35 and you're in.

The big guns weigh in

Last year, Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) wrote an open letter to Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson urging him to end his company's support of "climate change denial front groups." Further, they warned that "an American scientific group" would soon be attacking Exxon for its contributions.

You get one guess as to the name of that "scientific group." (No coaching from the audience, please). Since UCS has open membership, for all we know, any of its "concerned scientists" could be an off-the street nut case or worse, let alone a properly-credentialed "scientist."

Thus, not for the first time has the Stalinist mentality infected the hallowed halls of the United States Senate. (See this column "The enemies of Free Speech are on the March — Part 5: The Senate Censorship Politburo," Sept. 10, 2006.)

Clearly, there was an implied threat in the Rockefeller/Snowe letter. As CEI's Ebell put it to me, "Typically senators and congressmen do not write letters to private entities telling them what to do because they have power over a number of issues that affect those private entities." And he added, "It looks like [they're saying] if you don't do this [stop the contributions], any bill that's before Congress that affects you, we're going to make sure you get it in the neck."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

And from the media

For years, there has been within the mainstream media an "act alike, do alike, think alike" peer pressure. The global warming debate has carried that culture to a new and more troubling level.

Heidi Cullen, who hosts a weekly Weather Channel program called The Climate Code, advocates that broadcast meteorologists who do not go along with the "alarmist" global warming point of view be stripped of their scientific certification.

Nobody died and made this woman the ultimate authority of who is and who is not fit to exist in the meteorologist profession. But the Stalinist thought-control mentality never bothers with such trifles. Others in the media have compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers and suggested they be treated as traitors and that they be charged before Nuremberg-style war crimes trials. Why stop there? Thirties-style Moscow show trials, anyone?

But in fact, skepticism abounds

One hopes that one highly-decorated French geophysicist is safe from Heidi's gendarmes.

Claude Allegre is also a former French government official and an active member of France's Socialist Party. Until September of 2006, Monsieur Allegre was a believer in man-made catastrophic global warming. Not anymore. Further study and more recent findings have made him a skeptic.

He now says that "the prophets of doom on global warming have a lot on their plate in order to make our countrymen swallow their certitudes. He also accused the alarmists of being motivated more by a desire to line their pockets. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people" he said.

60 Canadian scientists have joined the skeptics, declaring, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto [the global warming treaty] would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

These are mere samples of the growing skepticism in the scientific community — adding to the ranks of the many scientists who never did buy into the alarmism in the first place.

No one in the U.S. Senate has done a more exhaustive study on this issue than Senator Inhofe. He has cited scientific studies showing that climate change is nothing new; the accuracy of computer predictions is doubtful; global cooling in fact may be on the horizon; the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing; to the extent there was global warming in the 1990s, it stopped in 1998; Alaska is cooling; the oceans are cooling; light hurricane seasons and early winter have become more common; the National Academy of Sciences has found "unsupportable" Al Gore's "hockey stick" claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade in 1,000 years; and polar bears are not going extinct. (On the latter point, see this column "Your safety vs. the enviro lobby," Jan. 11, 2007)

To sum it up

The Stalinists who would shut up the skeptics are looking more ridiculous by the day. Senator Inhofe puts it this way; "The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that [Al Gore] represents scientific 'consensus' that SUVs and the modern American way of life have somehow created a climate emergency — that only United Nations bureaucracies and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve it. [The] publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media [have] finally realized that the only 'emergency' confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line."

How's that for an "inconvenient truth"? Hopefully, those who agree with it and say so won't be hied off to the gallows.

[Soldier4Christ]

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder 
Agency roasted after blogger spots 'hot years' data fumble

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

[Soldier4Christ]

When a 1 degree F increase over many years is enough to support their global warming theories then this is a significant error.

There is an attempted media blackout on this report, at least by all the major liberal media outlets.

Many weather stations are located near sources of man-made heat (such as airports) so their readings need to be adjusted for that. But the adjustments made by Greenie scientists are “secret” and hence probably arbitrary, if not fraudulent. If rural stations only were used, the result would almost certainly be a record of cooling.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.

Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.

"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.

However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.

"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.

"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.

"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."

Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."

"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.

Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.

"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.

The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."

Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.

"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.

However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."

WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.

Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.

"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."

WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.

The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.

The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.

In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.

"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

[Soldier4Christ]

They're still not recognizing the NASA mathematical error that once corrected now indicate that the earth has been cooling since 1933.

[Shammu]

Global warming, 'hot air' = Al Gore

[Shammu]

Ice loss opens Northwest Passage
14 September 2007

The most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up fully for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the passage that links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic has been ice-bound.

But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this year's drop has made the passage navigable.

The findings - based on satellite images - have raised concerns about the speed of global warming.

'Extreme'

The Northwest Passage is one of the most fabled sea routes in the world - a short cut from Europe to Asia through the high Arctic.

Recent years have seen a marked shrinkage in its ice cover, but this year it was extreme, Esa says.

It says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978.

"We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3m sq km (1,2 sq miles)," Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Danish National Space Center said.

He said it was "about 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006".

"There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100, 000 sq km (38,600 sq miles) per year on average, so a drop of 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) in just one year is extreme," Mr Pedersen said.

The Northeast Passage through the Russian Arctic has also seen its ice cover shrink and it currently "remains only partially blocked," Esa says.

'Battle for Arctic'

Scientists have linked the changes to global warming which may be progressing faster than expected.

The opening of the sea routes are already leading to international disputes.

Canada says it has full rights over those parts of the Northwest Passage that pass though its territory and that it can bar transit there.

But this has been disputed by the US and the European Union.

They argue new route should be an international strait that any vessel can use.

Ice loss opens Northwest Passage

[Shammu]

The findings - based on satellite images - have raised concerns about the speed of global warming.

All I can say is..........................................

[Soldier4Christ]

Climate change helps rainforests
Study of Amazon finds growth spurts 'inconsistent with expectation'

Climate change may lead to lush growth rather than catastrophic tree loss in the Amazonian forests, researchers from the US and Brazil have found. A study, in the journal Science, found that reduced rainfall had led to greener forests, possibly because sunlight levels are higher when there are fewer rainclouds.

But scientists cautioned that while the finding raises hopes for the survival of the forests, there are still serious threats. Climate models have suggested that the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Climate models have suggested in the past that the Amazon will suffer enormous die-backs as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Deforestation is calculated to be one of the main contributors to the rising carbon dioxide levels that are widely held by the scientific community to be causing global warming. The loss of the Amazon would cause enormous quantities of carbon dioxide stored in the vegetation to be released back into the atmosphere, intensifying the warming effect.

Researchers identified the greener regions of the Amazon after analysing satelite images and comparing them to rainfall records. The 2005 drought provided them with “a unique opportunity to compare actual forest drought response to expectation”.

They said: “Large-scale numerical models that simulate the interactions between changing global climate and terrestrial vegetation predict substantial carbon loss from tropical ecosystems including the drought-induced collapse of the Amazon forest and conversion to savanna.

“If drought were to have the expected negative effect on canopy photosynthesis, it should have been especially observable during this period.

“The observations of intact forest canopy ‘greenness’ in the drought region, however, are dominated by a sgnificant increase, not a decline.”

Growth spurts would be “inconsistent with expectation”, they reported in the journal Science, and concluded the reduced rainfall was more than compensated for by extra sunlight.

“These observations suggest that intact Amazon forests may be more resilient than many ecosystem models assume, at least in response to short-term climatic anomolies,” they added.

Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term impacts of changing weather patterns on the Amazon and other forest regions from factors including strong el Nino events and long-term climate change.

Deforestation from logging, legal and illegal, and fires were cited as other threats to the condition of the Amazon forests, especially as the areas pinponted as being in the steepest decline were those that were “heavily impacted by human activites”.

[Shammu]

The Bible and 'global warming'

I can certainly understand why neo-pagans like Al Gore believe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, man-made, catastrophic global warming is the gravest threat to the planet.

What I can't understand is why people who claim to believe in the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God do so.

Even more difficult to comprehend is why some evangelical Christians are caught up in the notion that government and international action are the proper methods to fight this phantom threat.

First of all, in Genesis 8:22, we're told of a promise by God never to use global floodwaters again as a means of destroying life on Earth. In that promise, the Bible explicitly states: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

In other words, no more cataclysmic floods – the result Al Gore promises in the near future as a consequence of global warming. Just as importantly, there is another promise there that cold and heat shall not cease.

What does that mean?

It means God controls the world's temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth's "eco-system," not man. God controls our environment, not man.

It is so presumptuous and haughty of believers and non-believers alike to think man is in control of the destiny of the planet God created for us.

If it were so, would he not have warned us? With all of the prophecies in the Bible, should we not expect to be told that such matters are actually in our hands? Why would we be told exactly the opposite throughout scripture?

It's not that the Bible tells us there are no consequences for our actions on the planet. In fact, it quite explicitly does. But it is not the production of carbon dioxide that God finds offensive. It is the commission of sin. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever suggest that producing CO2 is sinful.

Keep in mind, it is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas – just like oxygen. God created CO2, not man. And nature's God still produces a lot more of it than does man.

In Isaiah 49, in a passage evangelicals believe represent the words of Jesus Himself, there is another promise – that those who follow Him would never perish from the heat of the sun.

"They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor the sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them," it says in Isaiah 49:10.

If cataclysmic global warming represented a real threat to believers, would God have made such a promise through Isaiah?

That is not to say heat will never be used as a means of judgment. In fact, it will be according to the Bible.

We are told in Revelation 16:9: "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory."

What this means is that scorching heat will be used as a judgment against non-believers, and, most importantly, that God and God alone has the power over such calamities.

Yes, there will come a time when the Earth is destroyed – and intense heat will be the mechanism God employs. But we are not talking about a rise of a few degrees over centuries. We're talking about heat so severe it melts the very elements that comprise the Earth.

That comes in a day that sounds very much like the time in which we live. It is described in 2 Peter 3:3-14

      3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Are today's evangelicals who agree with the worldly that the greatest threat to mankind is represented in catastrophic, man-made global warming without spot and blameless?

It is sheer folly and ego for man to believe he controls the destiny of God's creation. But it is even more disgraceful when those who claim to believe His Word preach a false gospel of global warming that directly contradicts the entire body of scripture.

[HisDaughter]

Excellent article!  I enjoyed it very much. 

[Eva]

The Bible and 'global warming'

First of all, in Genesis 8:22, we're told of a promise by God never to use global floodwaters again as a means of destroying life on Earth. In that promise, the Bible explicitly states: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

In other words, no more cataclysmic floods...

God controls the world's temperature, not man. God controls the climate, not man. God controls the earth's "eco-system," not man. God controls our environment, not man.

Why would we be told exactly the opposite throughout scripture?

"They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor the sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them," it says in Isaiah 49:10.  If cataclysmic global warming represented a real threat to believers, would God have made such a promise through Isaiah?

That is not to say heat will never be used as a means of judgment. In fact, it will be according to the Bible.

We are told in Revelation 16:9: "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory."

What this means is that scorching heat will be used as a judgment against non-believers, and, most importantly, that God and God alone has the power over such calamities.

 It is sheer folly and ego for man to believe he controls the destiny of God's creation. But it is even more disgraceful when those who claim to believe His Word preach a false gospel of global warming that directly contradicts the entire body of scripture.

Dreamweaver

I agree it is sad that people, especially Christians, are being deceived.  It reminded me of a couple of scriptures that might explain it though.

Matthew 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.  
Mark 13:5  And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

Romans 16:18  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

We really must be careful in these latter days.

Love in Christ, Eva

[nChrist]

AMEN AND AMEN!

GREAT POSTS Brother Bob and Sister Eva!

It's wonderful how the Bible puts everything into a proper perspective for Christians. The Holy Bible contains everything GOD wants us to know about the end days of HIS Age of Grace. Our hopes and promises aren't in this world, rather they are IN CHRIST!

When I think of folks like Al Gore, I think about the Scripture below.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 5:20-23 NASB
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink, Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!

[Brother Jerry]

Hmmm

I have to somewhat agree and disagree.  While I agree that ultimately the fate of this planet is in the hands of God.  I also believe that God would allow us to destroy this planet, and even later in that chapter of Isaiah it mentions just that. It describes in verse 19 "For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of thy destruction, shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants."

And if we look further back in creation we see one of our purposes.  Genesis 2:15 "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."  Now you could say that man was to keep just the Garden and that did not apply to the rest of the world.  However back in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"  Now in that verse it clearly states that man has dominion over the earth.  No where later does the Bible retract that dominion. 

Even later in Genesis 1:28 "...Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:..."

So yes I believe God has ultimate authority of the fate of this planet.  And I believe that God set in motion many phenomena when He created the Universe.  Many we are just now beginning to witness.  But I do believe that God has given us this planet to take care of.  And I also believe we are doing a terrible job of it.  I also do not believe that global warming is anything that is caused by us humans either. 

It is sort of like my soul.  God has the ultimate authority on my eternal life.  He has given me the soul to take care of.  And it is up to me to decide if I will give it back to Him or destroy it and keep it for myself.  God gave the human race this planet.  Do we give it back to him or destroy it?