The biblical and scientific evidence show that human-generated CO2 will produce some warming, but there is no climate emergency.
SUMMARY
The politicization of climate science has led to corruption of the science.
Over the last 100 years or so, the CO2 level has been increasing. However, the temperatures over that time have not been consistent with the hypothesis that human-generated CO2 is the prime cause of temperature increases.
The science is not ‘settled’, or there would be one model, not over a hundred, that attempts to predict the global temperature. Furthermore, the official climate models that have predicted up to 4.5°C of global warming with a doubling of the CO2 have failed all five tests applied to them. They should be rejected.
Because positive feedback does not operate, the warming from a doubling of the CO2 is likely to be less than 1°C, which would be beneficial to life on earth. Indeed, this is less than the 1.5°C of warming that the draconian policies formulated to limit CO2 production were set to achieve, based on the failed models.
The impact of global warming on various natural disasters has been hyped and is not supported by the evidence.
There is no climate emergency.
The economic impact of radical policies to limit CO2 will most seriously hurt the poorest people.
Because humans are intelligent and industrious, we can apply our God-given abilities to solve many (real) environmental issues, especially if we are guided by a Christian worldview.
The idea of dangerous climate change due to burning fossil fuels is unfounded in sound science, and divorced from biblical history.
As part of good stewardship, Christians should be at the forefront of a decision-making process that balances the needs of all the stakeholders, both in terms of economic development and in minimising negative impacts on the environment. A Bible-based approach to government, the environment, and justice will result in human flourishing, as it has in every country that has been strongly influenced by the Bible’s teaching.
Clearly, there can hardly be a Christian approach without Christ. Christians need to be pro-active in working to see others come to faith in Christ. In doing that we will also be once again laying the foundations for human flourishing, but also the flourishing of the planet because man is needed to look after it; that’s the way God designed it to be. Indeed, Hosea 2:18–23 connects the health of the land to the spiritual health of the people.
There is a sickness in many once-Christian countries, and it began with the undermining of the Bible as the Word of God from the beginning. When we see the Lord Jesus Christ once again honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world, we will see health return to our nations. As Biblical end times prophecies are already playing out in our day, Jesus’s return to set up His Millennial Kingdom is not too far off.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8)
This report summarises an in-depth report by Creation Ministries International (CMI) by the same name on http://www.creation.com
Like the Inquisition of Galileo (zero tolerance for dissent), climate science now follows this same Inquisition approach… and the tactics have been very much on display during the 28th annual UN Climate Change Summit, known as COP28, which is currently taking place in the UAE. Everything about this event is a complete joke; even on the COP28 website they have a fancy video filled with global celebrities whose theme is “No more waiting. It’s time to take action“. Hang on a sec. What exactly was the purpose of the previous 27 annual climate summits if there hasn’t been any action yet? Apparently, COPs 1-27 were complete failures in which absolutely nothing has ever been accomplished. But now it’s up to COP28 to finally get something done? This is hilarious given that most of the big shots who are attending COP28 are the same virtuous hypocrites who have flown in on their private jets year after year to all the previous summits. I guess they’re finally serious about doing something this time. One widely publicized exchange over the weekend was the “She Changes” panel… because feminism and gender identity politics has soooo much to do with climate change. The science is clear. So, this panel was basically the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, trying to demonstrate her virtue and genius by berating the CEO of Abu Dhabi’s national oil company. But the CEO wasn’t having any of it, at one point saying, “Stop pointing fingers. Show me solutions. Show me what you can do. Show me your own contributions,” and blasted her for creating even more divisions in an already polarized world. Then he committed the ultimate heresy and said that completely eliminating fossil fuels in the near future would “take the world back into caves” and that “no science out there . . . says that the phase-out of fossil fuel” will achieve the UN’s global temperature goals. The reaction was almost pandemonium as virtuous hypocrites around the world immediately voiced their opposition to the CEO’s dangerous wrongthink. “The science is clear,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who added that we must “stop burning fossil fuels– not reduce, not abate. Phase out.” “The science is absolutely clear,” said Bill Hare, the chief executive of a government-funded climate non-profit. Completely eliminating fossil fuels “will enhance the lives of all humanity.” “The science of climate change has been clear for decades”, said Professor Frederike Otto, listed as one of Time’s “100 most influential people in the world”.There’s that magical phrase again: the science is clear. Now, I’m not attacking climate science or those who dedicate their lives to it; there’s plenty of solid data out there. Plus, I love clean air and water as much as anyone, and I do my best to conserve resources and be greener. I’m also rational about it, which is why I’m so much in favor of nuclear power. But there is a certain arrogance to saying “the science is clear” without acknowledging any uncertainty, or that many of their end-of-the-world predictions haven’t come to pass. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. Science is a process of continuous growth, examination, and discovery. But to say “the science is clear” is to say that today’s conclusions are fully settled and will never change. If we’re intellectually honest, there are very few things we can say this about. Yet these people insist that “the science is clear” about eliminating fossil fuels. We MUST keep global warming below 1.5C, and the ONLY way to do that is to completely eliminate, i.e. “phase out” oil. No discussion about costs and benefits is allowed. Their view is the only view. The science is clear. It doesn’t help that they make a joke of themselves by having their virtuous hypocrite climate bosses fly in on private jets. And they insist on mixing in gender identity politics. In fact, at COP28 this year, there’s an entire theme on the agenda for “Gender and Inclusion”. The science is clear. But even if we accept the absolute certainty of their conclusions, there’s the matter of implementing their ideas. They demand, for example, that all energy be green. That means (in their definition) solar panels and wind power. Yet shifting to 100% green energy will require many critical resources (like copper and various other minerals) that the world simply cannot produce. And even if the production capacity existed, these same people insist on shutting down the world’s mines– because they’re bad for the environment. They don’t think realistically about implementation or costs versus benefits; they live in a theoretical dream world where TeraWatts of green power will simply fall from the sky. It’s bizarre that such unrealistic fanatics have so much influence in dictating global policy. And this is one of the reasons I’m so vocal about investing in real assets, in part to benefit from their irrationality. If the climate fanatics want to shut down mines, yet simultaneously create skyrocketing demand for copper from solar panel production, then it seems pretty likely that copper prices could soar. If they want to completely phase out fossil fuel production, that probably means oil prices will rise. If they want to require every business to become “net zero” and buy carbon credits, it probably means that the price of carbon credits will eventually be much higher. And if reason ever prevails– which it eventually does– and nuclear power is finally recognized as a viable solution– which it is already starting to be– then demand for uranium will go through the roof. But given uranium’s meager production and almost entirely drawn-down stockpiles, this also suggests that the price of uranium could one day go nuclear.I won’t say the science is clear… because it seldom is. But in a world run by fanatics, these sorts of ideas certainly make sense to consider.
Another great post by Simon Black, Founder of Sovereign Man Investment Advisory Service
The reality is that a world that has rejected its Creator is headed for God’s judgement. God has told us in advance what will unfold in the years before Jesus returns to bring righteous rule to the Earth with His Millennial Kingdom. God has unfinished business with the nation He established for His purposes. At the outset, God’s covenants with Abraham and David promised that a future Messiah would rule Israel and the nations. The new covenant given to Jeremiah, confirmed by Isaiah and repeated in Hebrews makes it clear God will have his nation, Israel rule the nations with a rod rod iron.
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke… For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jeremiah 31:31-33
“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.” Isaiah 59:21
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbour and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” Hebrews 8:8-12
JESUS AND THE SAINTS WILL RULE AND REIGN WITH A ROD OF IRON IN THE MILLENNIUM
“The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.”Revelation 2:26-27
She (Israel) gave birth to a male child (Jesus), one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.” Revelation 12:5-6
“From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”Revelation 19:15-16
Dr Jordan B Peterson explains why the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is absolutely preposterous.
Jordan Peterson has taken aim at Anthony Albanese’s “impossible” 2030 and 2050 emissions reduction target as he condemned “power-mad globalist utopians” pushing for drastic climate action.
Peterson criticized the global movement toward net zero emissions before slamming the new Australian Labor Government’s recent move to legislate its climate agenda. He said the “utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal” of net zero by 2050 was both practically and conceptionally unachievable.
Peterson wrote in The Telegraph. “This by the way is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the utterly delusional leaders of Australia,” “Who additionally committed that resource-dependent and productive country to a 43 percent plus decrease – by 2005 standards – in greenhouse gas emission within the impossible timeframe of eight years. “This will devastate Australia.”
The debate raged in the first sitting weeks of the new Parliament and ended with Labor successfully passing its Climate Change Bill through the House of Representatives. The bill will enshrine into legislation the government’s Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050.
RISE IN CO2 HAS GREENED PLANET EARTH:
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.
Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told BBC News: “The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.
“It also suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply.”
And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology added: “It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).
“These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed.”
CLIMATE: A CHAOTIC SYSTEM
Dr. Andrew N Edmonds who did his Ph.D. in time series prediction of real-world chaotic systems back in the 90s created a piece of software called ChaosKit to do this analysis. And for a while it had some buzz attached to it, principally in the world of finance, but also climate scientists became interested and sent him data, asking him to run the analysis for them.
One such piece of data was a 500-year sequence of temperatures from Northern Italy. He tried ChaosKit software on it and the results came out as chaotic, with a time to a doubling of error, which agreed with Dr. Peterson’s view that climate was not predictable because the prediction errors “grew like compound interest”.
Dr. Edmonds got given more climate data after that with similar results. Since then, many researchers in Chaos Theory, but not climate change, have performed similar analyses of different aspects of climate with similar results. There is mounting evidence that this is true. For instance: (Boyan H. Petkov, Vito Vitale, Mauro Mazzola, Christian Lanconelli, Angelo Lupi 2015; Gualtiero Badin 2014; R. C. Sreelekshmi, K. Asokan, K. Satheesh Kumar 2012; V. Krishnamurthy 7).
Not only is it true that climate is chaotic, but the Lyapunov time, the time to a doubling of error is so short that it undermines all climate modeling. For instance, if climate scientists can predict next year’s average temperature to an accuracy of +/- 0.1 Deg C, then the best their models can do is +/-0.2, the next year, 0.4 the next, 0.8 the next, 1.6 the year after that. Average world temperatures hover around 2 deg C, so this is an enormous error after only 5 years.
By way of comparison, recent work has shown our universe is chaotic. (Bruce Dorminey 2021) The interactions between the sun and the planets form a complex non-linear dynamic system with feedback. Such systems are often chaotic, but in the case of our universe the Lyapunov time is around 10 million years, so useful to understand some aspects of long-term climate, but not to cause an imminent threat…
Dr Peterson is correct, therefore, in what he says. Dr. Edmonds said, “I’d be fascinated to know where Dr. Peterson first read about this. I first published something about this ten years ago. (Andrew N Edmonds 2011). I’d like to think he saw that. The arguments have not changed since.”
As time has continued the ridiculous predictions in Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth” have turned out to be an inconvenient reminder of hubris. Unfortunately, ideas have massive momentum. The idea of a predictable climate is firmly embedded in people’s worldview, as is the idea that the trajectory of disease can be predicted. It’s hard for the layman to appreciate that the wonderfully predictable technology that enables me to type this and you to read it exists in the same world as the completely unpredictable and chaotic.
Scientists working in the “soft sciences”, and climate is one of those, have been able to ride on the coattails of the ‘hard sciences’ incredible accuracy.
In the end, this will undermine science itself, and those in the hard sciences will have to do something about it. Already the politicization of science caused by climate change has started to undermine other branches of science.
Dr. Edmonds believes that ultimately scientists will have to reject some of the wilder excesses of model-based predictions. In the social sciences, journals now reject papers based on small samples and poor analysis. He states, “Climate journals ought to ask for a thorough analysis of all sources of error in predictions, including the elusive but vital “model error”. If we actually knew the error bars on some of the wild predictions of doom that make their way into the newspapers, it’s unlikely we would give them any credence.”
Dr Edmonds provided the following Bibliography with his article. He said, I generally don’t give references when I write for Medium, but this stuff is contentious, so I’ve fired up Citavi.
Boyan H. Petkov, Vito Vitale, Mauro Mazzola, Christian Lanconelli, Angelo Lupi (2015): Chaotic behaviour of the short-term variations in ozone column observed in Arctic. In Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation,
Gualtiero Badin (2014): A Search for Chaotic Behavior in Stratospheric Variability: Comparison between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences.
R. C. Sreelekshmi, K. Asokan, K. Satheesh Kumar (2012): Deterministic nature of the underlying dynamics of surface windfluctuations. In Ann. Geophys 30, pp. 1503–1514.
Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Steven Koonin discuss the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports – the globally sourced research on climate change – and how policymakers take summaries of summaries from these to justify their green agenda, despite what the reports actually suggest. They also discuss starvation, obesity, green economics, and nuclear futures.
Dr. Steven Koonin, a University Professor at NYU, has served as the Department of Energy’s Under Secretary for Science, as Chief Scientist for BP, and as professor and Provost at Caltech. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Governor of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a senior fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Trustee of the Institute for Defense Analyses. Koonin holds a BS in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from MIT. He wrote the recent bestseller “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”
It is important that this man has both dimensions: knowledge of climate science and energy production (technology, production, and business). Very few people have both perspectives, which is why you need to hear what he has to say.
What is not discussed in the media is the fact that the earth is becoming greener due to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, Since the 1980s the increase is 40%. This is wonderful. For example, the Sahara Desert has been reduced by 15%. There is no apocalypse in the future, we can manage well if we allow scientists like Dr. Koonin to guide the change to more climate-friendly energy sources. Small modular nuclear reactors will be in the mix.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is doing well, in fact great. But the popular media won’t report this good news, but here is what a knowledgeable expert on the reef has to say. Dr. Peter Ridd a geophysicist, physical oceanographer, and inventor — has worked on the Great Barrier Reef since 1984 and has written over 100 scientific publications. Now an adjunct fellow at The Institute of Public Affairs, he was fired in 2018 from teaching at Australia’s James Cook University after criticizing exaggerations about reef damage. Dr. Ridd is also a member of the CO2 Coalition of Arlington, Virginia.
The Great Barrier Reef is made up of approximately 3,000 reefs covering an area nearly the size of California off Australia’s eastern coast. The condition of its coral is frequently referenced as an indicator of the reef’s health, regularly in the context of the supposed damage global warming is doing to the planet.
The reef now has more coral than any time since records began in 1986, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). There is roughly 20 percent more coral on the GBR than last year, which itself equaled a previous record year. All three major regions of the reef now have excellent coral cover and AIMS states that two regions are at record-breaking high levels.
As of the latest 2022 survey of the GBR, coral covered 34 percent of the seabed, double the lowest coverage recorded in 2012. There are many types of ecosystems on reefs other than coral – 34% is a remarkably high number.
This coral health exists despite four supposedly massively destructive and unprecedented bleaching events striking parts of the reef since 2016 – all allegedly due to climate change and one as recently as this year. Coral reefs typically take five to 10 years to recover from major damage, so how can GBR be enjoying such good health this soon? Is it possible that reef-science institutions exaggerated the damage in the first place to advance the global warming narrative? Perhaps.
However, 36 years of AIMS data show that large amounts of coral occasionally die — usually from cyclones, hot-water bleaching, or starfish plagues — but that recovery is often fast. For example, the Cooktown region suffered a moderate coral loss after a 2016 bleaching event but had recovered by 2021. By far, the biggest loss of coral was after Cyclone Hamish smashed the southern half of the reef in 2009. Recovery was largely complete by 2016.
These marine events, which have been going on for millennia, are akin to terrestrial bushfires from which the land quickly recuperates. However, untrustworthy institutions of science and other climate alarmists use them to foster hysteria over a climate that has vacillated between warmth and cold for as long as they have been observed.
These same purveyors of hyperbole then ignore or downplay news of the reef’s convalescence. For example, last year’s good news of coral coverage matching previous records was dismissed by claims that only the fast-growing coral had recovered. Poppycock! It is these species — staghorn and plate coral — that are most delicate and susceptible to damage and most obvious in their recovery.
Staghorn and plate coral — are most delicate and susceptible to damage and most obvious in their recovery.
The exceptional news this year is that almost every region of the reef is doing extremely well. For so much of the reef’s coral to be this healthy at the same time is very unusual. Normally, a large chunk of the reef is recovering from a major cyclone that drags down the average. So when the reef’s overall coverage is at today’s level of more than thirty percent of the area, the GBR’s health is indeed good.
This overall health is only apparent if the condition of the entire reef is reported. For whatever reason, AIMS stopped in 2017 averaging regional data to provide a composite view of the reef’s condition. I had to do that calculation for recent years myself to get a complete picture. Is this another instance of obscuring positive data?
Those who would play down the news of exceptional reef health should consider the unnecessary emotional damage being inflicted on children worried about their future. Elementary school students in America speak of their premature demise because of a faux climate emergency. A 2019 Australian survey reported that “around half of the residents, tourists and tourist operators surveyed, and almost one-quarter of fishers, report significant Reef Grief.”
God’s amazing creation has exceptional recuperative powers that provide further proof of intelligent design not evolution by random chance.
Western values are foundationally derived from Christianity, but an increasingly secular, humanistic society has lost sight of its roots. One outcome of this is that we are witnessing the development of a form of environmentalism that is disinterested in evaluating and meeting the needs of ordinary people.
One prime example of this post-Christian thinking in relation to climate change is UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He appealed to the UN General Assembly (22 September 2021) to argue for dramatic changes to global policy in use of carbon-based fuels. In his speech he undermined a basic Christian doctrine relating to the status and rights of mankind. He further appealed to the evolutionary tenets of naturalism, the Greek gods, and the ability of mankind to “save ourselves”
Boris Johnson started his speech by invoking millions of years, and that mankind is a relative latecomer, having been around for less than one million years:
“An inspection of the fossil record over the last 178 million years – since mammals first appeared – reveals that the average mammalian species exists for about a million years before it evolves into something else or vanishes into extinction. Of our allotted lifespan of a million, humanity has been around for about 200,000.”1
It is interesting, but somewhat bewildering, that Johnson should reference a period from the Jurassic, in which, he suggests, naturalistic science places the first appearance of mammals. The irony is that scientific papers have argued that during this time carbon dioxide levels (CO2) were between 1,000 and 2,000 ppm (parts per million). That is 2.5 to 5 times greater than where they are today, when global average temperatures were supposedly 5 to 10 degrees Celsius higher for prolonged periods (Ref 1 & 2 below). If the assumptions of naturalism and deep-time are true, then responsibility for such CO2 levels cannot be placed upon the shoulders of the not-yet-evolved human beings.
With this in mind, we may consider that setting the issue of climate change in the framework of a life and death struggle for the planet, as Johnson and other environmental campaigners do, is bogus. Of course, we can acknowledge that there may be practical problems that arise from a warming climate for humanity. This is applicable for example to permanent dwellings in coastal towns and cities that are subject to flooding (CMI has a comprehensive position paper on Climate Change). But, despite some evidence of more severe weather, improved planning, plus an accurate forecasting and warning capability, has led to a reduction in fatalities from such natural disasters. This was reported by the World Meteorological Organisation.
Boris Johnson fails to deal with the complexity of the environmental issues that arise, and instead resorts to easy sound bites. These undermine a central Christian belief about mankind’s place in the world:
“We still cling with part of our minds to the infantile belief that the world was made for our gratification and pleasure and we combine this narcissism with an assumption of our own immortality. … It is time for humanity to grow up.”
He misrepresents the Judeo-Christian belief that natural resources are a divine gift for humanity, and that people are justified in utilising them out of necessity, albeit not for selfish gratification or pleasure. But he calls this belief “infantile”. Use of natural materials, such as iron, coal, oil, and gas, have brought great benefit to humanity, not least in terms of raising people out of poverty. Even so, we recognise this is not always without negative environmental or health impacts.
This only shows that making decisions about the environment is a complex process. It requires thinking in terms of inter-related systems. That is, thinking about the needs of human communities, businesses, the ecosystem etc., and so balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders and groups. These interested groups are sometimes in competition, or conflict with one another, and their needs do not necessarily align. It cannot be dismissed as an easy task.
And yet, Johnson appears to do so with a childish reference to one of the Muppet characters. He commented; “And when Kermit the frog sang It’s Not Easy Bein’ Green, I want you to know he was wrong.”
If we are to “grow up”, as Johnson states, it must be in terms of recognising the complexity of the issues involved, and bravely facing the truth about the world as it actually is.
Need for good stewardship
Of course, utilisation of natural resources needs to be done responsibly. That is, with concern for social and environmental protection, and without the greedy exploitation of unrestrained capitalism. Mankind has been given dominion over the earth by God (Genesis 1:26), and we should fill our role of stewardship with diligent duty. We must not forget the poor in addressing a problem that may not entirely be the result of humanity in the first place.
In the context of the use of carbon fuels, his statement to the UN General Assembly demonstrates that Prime Minister Johnson is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. Like many green utopians, who are often the wealthy elite in society, there is a failure to see that access to cheap carbon fuels is necessary. This is especially so for people to travel, cook food, and keep warm in winter. Cheap carbon fuels are not greedily consumed for human “gratification and pleasure”, but are a basic necessity for life. It would be great if renewable energy could supply the basic needs for power, light, and heat, but much of the technology is not there yet in terms of quantity and quality.
With some irony, Johnson delivered his speech at a time when market natural gas prices were rocketing in the UK, and many other countries across the world. This was hitting the pockets of ordinary consumers. In the UK, the cause of this was partly related to government policy to reduce UK carbon emissions. As well-known journalist and author Peter Hitchens has pointed out, “Utopians, as George Orwell demonstrated, prefer their visions to reality or truth.
While ignoring the Judeo-Christian place of mankind in the world, Johnson believes we can save ourselves through science. Along with this, he references the Greek gods. Johnson, who majored in the Classics at Oxford University, has previously expressed knowledge of Scripture and Christian doctrines. But disappointingly on this occasion, his speech effectively idolised the scientific endeavour. It also showed his ignorance of the fact that God is in total control of His universe and the many Biblical prophecies relating to Jesus second coming to earth to rule for 1000 years. Boris stated:
“… it is through our Promethean faith in new green technology that we are cutting emissions in the UK.”1
Prometheus, being the god of forethought, is considered by Johnson to be a suitable allegory, or idol, for the faith we place in science. But we may note that Prometheus was also said to be a ‘supreme trickster’.11 Johnson is convinced it’s the strength of humanity that will get us out of this ‘self-inflicted mess’, and so we can ‘save ourselves’. He commented:
“We are awesome in our power to change things and awesome in our power to save ourselves, and in the next 40 days we must choose what kind of awesome we are going to be.”1
This astounding statement entirely ignores the reality of humanity’s fallen condition, evident by reading any newspaper or newsfeed, as well as taught in Scripture. It is very reminiscent of the Pelagian heresy, which arose in the fifth century in Rome against the Pauline / Augustinian doctrine of grace.12 Pelagianism undermines the effect of the Fall, and holds that mankind can attain perfection through self-effort—without the need for divine grace.
In response to such a skewed worldview, Peter Hitchens commented recently that it is only when “everyone sees what a post-Christian country is really like, they may begin to be interested in the gospels again.”
Berner, R.A., Kothavala, Z., and GeoCARB III, A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, Amer. J. Sci.301:182–204, 2001. Also: Bergman, N. et al., COPSE: A new model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science304:397–437, 2004. Rothman, D.H., Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(7):4167–4171, 2001. Royer, D.L., et al., CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate, GSA Today14(3):4–10, 2004. Return to text.
Worsley, T.R., Moore, T.L., Fraticelli, C.M., and Scotese, C.R., Phanerozoic, CO2 levels and global temperatures inferred from changing paleogeography, Geol. Soc. of Amer. Special Paper 288, 1994. See also the temperature reconstruction graph by Scotese, C., PALEOMAPproject, scotese.com/climate.htm, 2015.Return to text.
This article is derived from a CMI article “UK Prime Minister addresses Climate Change, but undermines Christian doctrines” by Andrew Sibleyhttp://www.creation.com
This is a concise expose of climate fraud. Please pass it around to everyone you know and your elected officials. The video is short, 13 minutes, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Sadly, the truth contained in Tony’s video will never overcome the emotion-fuelled political advantage of having a simple, taxable villain like CO2. No wonder politicians, media, academia, and the green energy industrial complex will protect this lucrative fantasy at all costs. Nevertheless, I recommend you watch the video and then you decide.
An extremely important video on climate change. Celebrities, activists, environmentalist organisations, the UN, government entities and sadly, even the Vatican support the theory that humans cause climate change. However, in this exclusive interview, “global warming” expert and author Marc Morano gives you hard-hitting arguments and facts that dispel the artificial fear propagated by “climate emergency” alarmists.
In the video Marc Morano talks about: Climate change (2.58 minutes), Population control (14.24 min.) Global warming (17.12 min.), Medieval warm period (19.37 min.), Best arguments against climate change (33.03 min.) The fake 97% scientific consensus 34.17 min), The Green New Deal (38.23 min), Pope Francis and Laudato Si (48.11 min.), Socialism and environmentalism (51.27 min.), His book is Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change
Yes, there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places in the coming days but it is not caused by humans but by God as part of His “end times” plan.
LIVING ETERNAL NOW 