“We Must Go Tell the King”
Vol: 64 Issue: 31 Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The issue of global warming has really begun to heat up (pardon the pun) in advance of the much-anticipated report to be released Friday by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris.
The issue of climate change has reached almost religious proportions. Those who believe in it will not be dissuaded despite the lack of evidence, and those who don’t believe in it won’t believe in it no matter how much evidence is accumulated.
Among true believers, there is yet another division, this time according to doctrine. Having accepted the reality of global warming, either one believes it is caused by human activity, despite the lack of evidence, or one is certain human activity has nothing to do with it, despite the evidence accumulated.
Take Al Gore’s environmental movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” At various times, environmental scientists have catalogued whole lists of scientific errors, factual exaggerations and faulty computer models so glaring that the film is nicknamed by some of its detractors as “The Truth is Inconvenient.”
If one is a fan of Al Gore (“Hi. I”m Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States”) then no matter what science says, Gore’s film is scientific gospel that is being suppressed by Big Business.
If one is inclined to see Al Gore as a sore loser who tried to conduct a judicial coup d’etat by manipulating the eligibility of the disputed votes, Gore’s movie is simply another effort to smear the Bush administration.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.
I’m not an environmental scientist. I don’t even play one on TV. But it is possible to NOT be an environmental scientist without also being an idiot incapable of having an informed opinion.
There are, for example, Bible teachers who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew and Greek who are still quite capable of teaching the Bible.
If one wants to exegete a word, phrase or verse in its original languages, there are reference tools, like a Strong’s Concordance, for exactly that purpose.
It is no more complicated than it sounds. If you don’t know, ask someone who does.
(This would be a great place to point out that Al Gore isn’t an environmental scientist, either. He is a politician, and therefore, by definition, has a political agenda to advance.)
The IPPC Report is a consensus report signed off on by some 2,000 scientists culled from more than 100 countries. That sounds pretty impressive until one looks at the facts.
There are more than 7,000 atmospheric scientists in the US alone. So the 2,000 IPPC scientists represent but a fraction of all the atmospheric scientists in the world.
In 2001, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine launched a petition project aimed at dissuading the US from signing on to the Kyoto Accords.
In a letter seeking signatories to the petition from Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, is this opinion:
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The petition contains similar language and bears more than 17,000 signatures of basic and applied scientists, and more than two-thirds of them hold advanced degrees.
Among the signers were 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists and 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization were in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences.
According to NASA, the earth isn’t undergoing permanent climate change, but rather, it is at the extreme end of a natural 1,000 year climate cycle.
But daring to dispute the established doctrine that the planet is undergoing permanent, man-made climate change that threatens the extinction of the human race is an act of scientific heresy.
A top meteorologist at the Weather Channel recently advocated stripping the credentials from any meteorologist who dared to question either the reality or the alleged cause of permanent climate change.
Nobody was around to observe the last climate cycle a thousand years ago. And thirty years ago, the same science that blames human activity for global warming that started at the turn of the 20th century were predicting thirty years ago that the earth was entering a new Ice Age.
So, what is the truth? Is global warming permanent? Or part of a cycle? Is it man-made? Or is it the result of external influences, such as the recent, and unusually strong solar storm activity or other factors?
Beats me. And science doesn’t know either. The best they can do on either side is guess.
The IPPC report says as much, revising its estimates of catastrophe over the next century downward by more than 25% from what they predicted in 2001. The difference between the 2001 and 2007 estimates is wide enough to determine whether Florida will be under water in fifty years.
But to those who embrace the religion of Man-As-The-Cause-of-Human-Extinction, it is enough to demand the erection of some kind of cosmic Tower of Babel — right now — lest we all be scattered from the face of the earth. (Genesis 11:4)
The only thing certain about global warming is that nobody knows for sure if it is real. Nobody. Not NASA. Not the IPPC. There is no scientific consensus. It could be. Or maybe not.
It reminds me of the billions of dollars now being spent on research to protect the earth against a catastrophic meteor strike like the one science says caused the extinction of the dinosaurs — 85 million years ago.
Why is there more of chance of an extra-terrestrial collision today than there was fifty years ago — especially given that we are using a interval like 85,000,000 years as our baseline?
Yet the hysteria is only beginning. Astronomers are issuing dark prognostications about what consequences the recent series of solar eruptions will bring to our Big Blue Marble.
Environmentalists are predicting sea level rises will put most of the world’s coastal cities underwater in a matter of decades.
Geologists are warning of a coming magnetic shift in the earth’s magnetic fields.
There is even serious talk of the earth ‘flipping’ on its axis, making the current polar regions the new equator and putting Cuba up near the new North Pole.
Astrophysicists warn that the universe is expanding at a faster rate than anticipated, while astro-climatologists warn of exposure to the star-generated radiation they say is now leaking through the hole in the ozone layer.
The hysteria isn’t based on what we KNOW, but rather, based on interpretations of what we see. It puts me in mind of the old English fairy tale, “Henny Penny”:
“One day Henny-penny was picking up corn in the cornyard when–whack!–something hit her upon the head. ‘Goodness gracious me!’ said Henny-penny; ‘the sky’s a-going to fall; I must go and tell the king.'”
Think, for a moment, about the debate from the perspective of the United Nations. If it becomes a globally-accepted truth that the sky is falling, then there is only one remedy possible.
Turning control over to the UN as the guardian of the globe.
Think of the power that would afford the UN to levy global taxes, impose mandatory restrictions, and even to declare polluting nations as “enemies of humanity.”
And anyone who doubts the adage “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” need look back no further than when the UN was given absolute power over Iraq’s “Oil for Food” program.
As I said earlier, I don’t know if the earth is undergoing permanent climate change or if the current climate shifts are part of a 1000-year cycle — and neither does anybody else.
But there are certainly indisputable signs that the earth has been getting warmer over the course of this generation. The two hottest years on record both occurred since the dawn of the 21st century.
I don’t know the cause, but I recognize both the signs and the global hysteria they are engendering as being direct fulfillments of Bible prophecies for the last days, given by Jesus and addressed to a single generation, somewhere in time.
“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.”
Isn’t that EXACTLY what the IPPC report is predicting? As to the ‘distress of nations, with perplexity’ — doesn’t that pretty much sum up the global reaction to the IPPC’s report and the hysterical debate it is helping to fuel?
“Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.”
We don’t know what to worry about most: climate change, falling space rocks, ultraviolet radiation or coastal flooding on a global basis.
We are just as afraid of the risks posed from the heavens as we are that which is about to befall the earth. We only know that our best science says “it isn’t a question of ‘if’ but a question of ‘when'” — and so on.
According to Jesus, the mass global hysteria will get worse and worse until, “. . . they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”
So, what does it all mean to us in terms of understanding the signs of the times? I’m glad you asked, because Jesus gives us the answer with His next breath:
“And when these things BEGIN to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:25-28)
You just can’t make this stuff up.