Though arguments presently rage over the issue of climate change, only one side is getting the lion’s share of the publicity. The global warmists win hands down on that score. The realists’ argument is plainly not fashionable. It does not win votes, it does not win business and it’s certainly not appealing to the mass media!
That the Earth’s climate is undergoing change is without question. As to its reasons, and its history, they are the nubs of the arguments posed by both the short-term pro-global warming pundits and those who take a longer view.
Believe it or not, in the not-too-distant future, this Earth is in for a big freeze—guaranteed! But it will not be due to any of the long-term cyclical changes that periodically contribute to either a rise or fall in the Earth’s temperature. This freeze will, indeed, be brought on by the hand of man! More of that later.
Take away the intense politics surrounding the global warming debate, take away the self-interest groups, business interests, legal, bureaucratic and mass media influences that all seek to make a buck out of driving public hysteria over the fads and fashions of the age, and pure science—given the history of cyclical changes in the Earth’s temperatures—reveals that man has little influence on the overall surface temperature of the Earth. Man’s influence on temperature is localized at best.
Scientists all agree that the greatest single driver of Earth’s climate is the sun, the source of our Earth’s energy. Only 160 years have elapsed since the end of the Little Ice Age. It was the onset of the Little Ice Age in the 12th century that drove the Viking residents of Greenland from their previously lush pastures on that large island to settle south in warmer climes. During the Little Ice Age, the evidence tells us that glaciers expanded, threatening many a mountain village with destruction. Since 1850, with the end of that cooling cycle—well before the Industrial Age began to add its pollutants to Earth’s atmosphere—the world’s ice packs have been receding.
The problem with the global warmists is that the theories of their politicized pseudo-science do not match the more exact science of those responsible for accurate measurement of global temperatures.
Ocean temperatures are these days measured by 3,000 automated Argos buoys deployed in the seas. These buoys present a challenge to global warmers. “The Argos buoys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for nasa in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in an interview with National Public Radio, ‘there has been a very slight cooling’ over the buoys’ five years of observation, but that drop was ‘not anything really significant.’ Certainly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream” (Brookesnews.com, March 31).
Added to this challenge to the global warming theorists is the evidence produced by nasa’s eight weather satellites. “In contrast to some 7,000 land-based stations, they take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the surface of the Earth. In 30 years of operation, the satellites have recorded a warming trend of just 0.14 degrees Celsius—well within the range of normal variations” (ibid.).
In a widely publicized—and criticized—interview with npr, Michael Griffin, the administrator of nasa, in response to a question regarding the legitimacy of spending money on space projects rather than concentrating efforts on attending to global warming, stated, “I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings—where and when—are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take” (May 31, 2007).
Mr. Griffin highlighted that leftists, who tend to be thick within the ranks of the greens and global warmists—most of whom are avid, godless evolutionists who deny the reality of a Creator—generally have no compunction about playing god in efforts to impose their will on the masses.
Food riots in various parts of the world are highlighting the ludicrous nature of government policies that have taken traditional food crops out of the food chain in efforts to create so-called green fuels. In addition to this, the carbon credits fiasco is proving quite a scam for corporatists whose sole interest, far from benefiting global climate, tends to be an increase in corporate profits.
The great danger in so many so willingly hopping on the global warming bandwagon is that suddenly, in the general absence of common sense prevalent in today’s society, the whole global warming nonsense has become a religion, and a very dangerous religion at that. It has politicians who find difficulty in gaining consensus between political parties on issues of vital importance, suddenly finding common ground on the global warming issue.
One prime example was Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, who when faced with great divisions within the European Union on a whole range of issues during her leadership of last year’s EU summit, cleverly played the global warming card, raising that issue to the top of the summit agenda. The result of this ploy was that, with all parties falling fashionably in line behind her on this one single issue, she was able to declare the summit, though it was in fact a farce, as being a great success on what she declared was the main issue on which she had sought agreement—global warming!
Spiegel Online reported, “Merkel sees this summit as Europe’s chance to take on a pioneering role in the battle against CO2 emissions and global warming. She wants to use an EU agreement to leverage a G-8 agreement and put pressure on major CO2 emitters around the globe. … ‘I personally am very satisfied and happy that it has been possible to open the door into a whole new dimension of European cooperation in the years to come in the area of energy and combating climate change,’ Merkel said at a Friday news conference” (March 9, 2007).
By cleverly maneuvering climate change to the top of her EU summit agenda, and by achieving consensus on what the media has seized upon as an issue of vital global importance, Merkel was able to snatch victory out of the jaws of what may well have been billed as a debacle—given the wide divisions at the summit on so many other issues—had it not been for this face-saving exercise. Not only that, the German chancellor can now strut her global EU warming stuff on the world stage, greatly enhancing her country’s prestige in the great ongoing global warming debate—a sure winner when it comes to attracting the attention of the global media!
In early March the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (nipcc), consisting of 500 scientists, economists, leading businessmen and government policy gurus, met at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square, New York City, to consider the subject of climate change. At the conclusion of their discussions, they released the “Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.” Considering the topic, the size and eminence of the group that convened to discuss it, and the controversial nature of the declaration to which they appended their signatures, the grand silence from the mass media on this has been deafening.
Yet, perhaps this just demonstrates the great difficulty that human beings have in admitting when they are wrong … especially when they have been duped!
One common-sense commentator, British political economist Rodney Atkinson, posted the following comment on his website (April 24):
Five hundred signatories to the Manhattan Declaration including leading climate scientists have declared that man-made global warming is a myth. They say that “There is no evidence that CO2 emissions from industrial activity have in the past, are now or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.” Indeed, in the historical record the rise in CO2 has always followed periods of warming (as the effects of disturbances on the sun and the Earth created more CO2) not preceded them as the man-made global warming (mmgw) theorists maintain.
The Manhattan Declaration calls for an end to the enormous taxation burdens put on individuals and industry by “climate change” levies, etc. Those levies in the UK have raised energy costs by at least 6 percent, which (together with other government disasters like fuel taxation and the failure of the EU gas market) has contributed to a crisis of energy poverty among millions of British households (when 10 percent or more of income is spent on fuel bills). A consultant’s report comissioned by the UK government, estimates the cost of attempting to meet the EU target for 20 percent of energy consumption to be met by renewables by 2020. “The Central Case estimates the cost … to be €18.8 billion, with the lifetime cost of the policy being €259 billion.” … This is a scandalous waste of human resources—and all based on the myths of mmgw.
So much for Angela Merkel’s infamous EU consensus on global warming.
But this is a problem of global proportions. With many economies reeling from the effects of the global credit binge, added to the escalation of energy costs and the flow-on effects of hiking costs on staples, it seems crazy for governments to be adding to their own and others’ mounting financial crises by feeding the fire with policies that continue to escalate the price of anything that needs manufactured heat, light and/or motorized energy to produce it.
Rodney Atkinson continues:
So much of the research into man-made global warming (mmgw) has been funded with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money (i.e. spent by those least capable—governments!). Little or no government funding has been made available to those who have questioned mmgw, and most of those claiming to speak for the world’s scientists tend to be the very few scientists and managers who run academic associations rather than those engaged in real climate science. There has been massive politicization of science by mmgw fanatics in governments. Those bent on acquiring greater power for supranational organisations have sought to create public concern—regardless of the truth. Some have let their political and ideological intentions out of the bag!
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits … climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world,” said Christine Stewart, former Canadian environment minister .…
The Manhatten Declaration does not mince words when it comes to its final recommendations: “That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth. That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith” (Science and Public Policy Institute, March 12).
Will world leaders agree to such recommendations? They would certainly have to eat humble pie to do so, and world leaders are not renowned for demonstrating such humility. As Rodney Atkinson declares (op. cit.):
There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional control over free nations. The quality of politicians in the rich Western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. Climate change seemed to them a gift from heaven—literally!
Atkinson likens such political movements as mmgw to a “modern equivalent of medieval religious hegemony” which “previously terrified the ignorant and uneducated into submission. The new enslavement may be reliant on the new gods of politically perverted science but the effects of its myth making and global costs are no less terrifying than the Inquisition.”
It is a fact of history that never has a weapon of war been manufactured without an intention to use it. We live in a terribly destabilized and destabilizing world. Nuclear weaponry has been trafficked all over the world. Pip-squeak nations vie with the great global powers to establish their own nuclear weapons programs. The world lives in fear of a madman triggering nuclear warfare. Only quite recently Israel wiped out an alleged nuclear weapons manufacturing establishment in Syria.
There are prophecies in your Bible that indicate, far from global warming being a threat to mankind, nuclear winter is a real prospect for the future (Matthew 24:20-22). That’s the problem that ought to be of greatest concern to us today. Yet, to our great detriment, as Rodney Atkinson observes, due to a real poverty of true leadership within our Western democracies today, we can expect little of positive effect from that quarter. This also is prophesied in your Bible (Isaiah 3:1-4).
Yet, thank God, this “modern equivalent of medieval religious hegemony” will be short-lived. In fact, its very presence on this globe is a harbinger of better, far, far better times to come!
As our editor in chief stated following the 9/11 terrorist attack (November 2001),
But realize also the positive side of this—there is a voice out there warning our people. … Though it comes with a lot of bad news—so much so that the land will eventually not be able to bear our words (Amos 7:10)—it also comes with the greatest news mankind has ever heard.
Notice Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. …”
That’s the real hope, and the only hope, for a future free of the enslavement of minds to such lies as the great global warming hoax! ▪