--

--The Great Global Warming Swindle~

'The whole theory of the climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.'

-Leaked Emails May Show Global Warming Research Is a Fraud
-By: Brian Thomas, M.S.

-Over a thousand sensitive emails and documents from Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia were published online in late November without CRU’s permission. Some of their content suggests that the data used to support the theory of human -caused global warming have not been accurately represented.

The leaked emails have surfaced in time for the United Nations summit on climate, set to commence in December. Most of the emails are mundane, but some contain dialogue between scientists about adjusting climate data to support the man-made global warming hypothesis. The university is currently investigating the information leak, but if these communications prove to be legitimate, what other areas of research have also been subject to data tampering?

One email in particular that has raised questions appears to have been sent from CRU Director Phil Jones and uses the words “trick” and “hide” in relation to the presentation of climate data. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd[sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline [in temperature],” the email states.

While scientists generally agree that global temperatures had been rising, they disagree as to what causes warming or cooling. “Warmist” scientists cite human activity, and “non-warmist” researchers are convinced that the data are either inconclusive or that natural phenomena are primarily responsible for global temperatures.

Climate research has been going on for a long time, yet the issue came to the media, and subsequently the political, forefronts when former U.S. Vice President Al Gore championed it as a “climate crisis” and released the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006. Gore has since continued to push the warmist view, asserting that the science so robustly supports human activity as the cause of global warming that “the debate in the scientific community is over.”

Despite Mr. Gore’s assertion, over 31,000 dissenting non-warmist scientists have put their names on the Global Warming Petition Project. Signees remain unconvinced that significant global temperature trends can be attributed to human activities. ICR climatologist Dr. Larry Vardiman, a petition signee, has previously highlighted research indicating that solar activity is a much more likely cause.

While the university investigates the apparent information leak, some warmists suspect that the entire collection is a fabrication by disingenuous non-warmists willing to influence the UN summit. Contrarily, many non-warmists feel that if these electronic documents are legitimate, thus showing that data were manipulated, they add yet another reason to doubt that human activity has significantly impacted global climate.

If confirmed, the data distortions should not come as a shock. One recent study showed that though scientists rarely admit to it themselves, they claim that colleagues manipulate data at a high rate. Preferred paradigms can take precedent over an enormous amount of contraindications. Some profess unsupported ideologies in spite of the facts against them. Oft-quoted evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin once wrote:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

Thus, “the stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.” In light of the fallibility of humans and therefore scientists, all involved would benefit from careful consideration of all available evidence before jumping onboard the latest “scientific” bandwagon.
--To see references go to: <www.icr.org>

---Global Warming Halts, Arctic Ice Multiplies
--BY/ BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * (OCTOBER 16, 2013)
-(Link at bottom~)


---Fox News recently reported, "Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013," publishing dramatic before and after satellite images of Earth's Arctic region. How could ice increase if man-made industrial emissions—which have not appreciably diminished of late—continue to heat the earth, melt glaciers, and kill polar bears? Scientists are producing conflicting predictions from the same available climate data—what pieces might their models be missing?

A technical comment published in Nature Climate Change shows that the actual warming trend from 1993 to 2012 was "significantly slower" than predictions from climate models. The authors also reported that Earth's global temperature warmed from 1998 to 2012 by 0.05°C up to 0.08°C. During this timespan, the overall trend actually stayed within the error margin, so there has been close to zero temperature change in the last decade and a half.

But climate reports—and predictions—vary widely.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their 2013 report, fingering man-made greenhouse gas emissions as the "very likely" causative agent in what, to them, has been a clear warming trend. Although they did acknowledge the apparent halt in global warming over the last 15 years, they predict that "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming."

Conversely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released a 2013 brief arguing that, since the warming trend essentially stopped in 1997 and greenhouse emissions like the "8% increase in atmospheric CO2" have not stopped, "no close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human related CO2 emissions."4

The NIPCC also contended that climate-change trends seem to be more closely linked with solar activity—primarily sunspot behavior—a finding that Institute for Creation Research (ICR) physicists have generally supported. However, "the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming," according to the NIPCC report, in which the secular scientists also suggested continued warming would probably not have a long-term impact since Earth was much warmer millions of years ago.

In step with the IPCC's projections of continued warming, The New York Times wrote in 2012, "Some scientists think the Arctic Ocean could be largely free of summer ice as soon as 2020." But the August 2013 Arctic experienced record ice growth.

Whatever the reason for these incongruous predictions, one thing appears certain. In believing that global processes lie either at the whim of man-made chemicals or were subject to imagined eras from some distant past, both groups fail to consider that "The earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein."

How can so many intelligent scientists with access to the same data come to such different conclusions? Perhaps their climate prediction models rely more on what they wish to include rather than acknowledging that their best efforts are up against designs that transcend human understanding.~~
<https://www.icr.org/article/global-warming-halts-arctic-ice-multiplies>
-----------

--Oil Companies, Global Warming and Hurricanes .....
--Link at bottom ~

Oil Companies, Global Warming, and Hurricanes: How Does Real Science Analyze Cause and Effect?
BY/ JAMES J. S. JOHNSON, J.D., TH.D. * / ICR- (10/01/2010)

The prophet Jeremiah once vigorously argued with Jewish men and women who insisted that their troubles were caused by a failure to worship the queen of heaven. People today might sneer at such irrational idolatry, but is modern society immune from illogical and superstitious thinking? Perhaps we can learn a lesson in logic by comparing Jeremiah's situation to a bizarre lawsuit over damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

A Bizarre Series of Events

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Louisiana coastline, wreaking havoc in several southern states. In the aftermath, a number of people who had lost or suffered damage to their homes sued certain oil companies, based on a "scientific" theory that the companies' "greenhouse gas" emissions contributed to global warming, which led to greater devastation by the hurricane. Since the oil companies were to blame for the gas emissions that supposedly led to this result, it was argued that they should pay for the damage.

Although the case was dismissed by the trial judge, a federal appellate court three-judge panel reversed that decision and authorized the homeowners to sue the oil companies. The panel specifically ruled that the plaintiffs should be allowed to prove that the oil companies' "greenhouse gas" emissions (which supposedly caused global warming) increased Hurricane Katrina's ferocity, which led to the destruction of the plaintiffs' homes.

Sounds like a Hollywood movie promoting the standard global warming propaganda, right? In a bizarre twist of events, this real class action case was decided recently by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Other judges on that appellate court elected to reconsider the three judges' decision to reverse the case's dismissal. But because of conflicts of interest and other factors, only nine judges could rule on this. And after they vacated the panel's decision, but before they could provide an alternate ruling to the reversal, one judge recused himself, leaving the court without a quorum and effectively placing the case in a legal black hole--where it will remain unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Indeed, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction! The court rulings illustrate something that the Institute for Creation Research has been emphasizing for years: empirical science (the science of observing effects in the present) is not equivalent to forensic science (the science of recognizing causes in the past, such as the origins of earth, animals, and humans).

In other words, observing things in the present is not the same as reconstructing cause-and-effect histories of the past.

Cause and Effect Fallacies

So, are the oil companies to blame for Hurricane Katrina's destructiveness? To answer that question using insights from Scripture, consider how cause-and-effect event relationships involve more than just sequencing events on a timeline. The phrase post hoc fallacy (i.e., occurring later, therefore occurring because of) is used to describe the assumption that if one event precedes another, the first event must have caused the second event. This may be illustrated from Jeremiah 44:18 as follows:

Event 1: "We left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her."

Event 2: Since then, "we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine."

Conclusion, relying on a post hoc assumption: Our failure "to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her" must be the cause of the bad consequences we are presently experiencing--namely, "we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine."

This same post hoc argument is extended in Jeremiah 44:19, where the women argue that: a) when they burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings and worshipped her, they had their men (i.e., the Babylonians had not captured or killed the men of their families); but b) now that the queen of heaven is not being worshipped in this way (which is necessarily implied by the preceding verse), they are missing many of their men--implying that the failure to worship the queen of heaven must be the cause of their now-missing men. (Actually, the real cause was quite different.

Consider the same logic in the federal lawsuit mentioned above. Note the assumed sequence of events:

Oil/energy companies operate.
Massive "greenhouse gas" emissions result.
Global warming occurs.
Hurricane Katrina's fury increases.
Plaintiffs' homes and properties are destroyed.

The post hoc argument concludes that event one substantially caused event five. Therefore, the defendant oil/energy companies are to blame for the hurricane damage, so those companies should pay millions of dollars to the class action plaintiffs!

The events in question were observed by eyewitnesses. Those observations were "present observations" at the time those events occurred (and were documented by photographs taken by eyewitnesses). At least four of the alleged events can be documented as a matter of empirical (i.e., observation-based) science.

But what about those causation conclusions? How do we know that event one caused event two? Or that (alleged) event three caused event four? The causation analysis involved a lot more than simple eyewitness observations. Many assumptions were involved, including some assumptions about universal physical laws, as well as some (supposedly) logic-based conclusions about specific events historically causing specific effects.

The Ultimate Example of Cause and Effect

Will the plaintiffs in the Hurricane Katrina case ultimately try and win their class action lawsuit, leading to a multi-million-dollar jury verdict against the oil companies? If so, there are a lot of causation/proof problems to be resolved along the way. Surely a sound prove-up of trial evidence, to justify the plaintiffs' causation theory, is a very tall order! However, as far-fetched and bizarre as the plaintiffs' "global warming" theory of hurricane destruction is, it is much more believable than the evolutionists' theory of how humans and animals originated on earth.

Consider the variety of animals we observe worldwide. Did a Darwinian process of "phylogenetic tree" (single ultimate ancestor) evolution cause the biodiversity we see in earth's animal kingdom? Impossible. Evolutionary proponents have yet to provide any scientific evidence demonstrating how life could begin from non-life, much less mutate into the many life forms we see today.

Genesis provides us with true information on how modern animals arrived on this planet: They are all descended from voyagers that disembarked the good ship Noah's Ark. The historical facts of the Flood (and the holy judgment they represent), of course, are willingly ignored by evolutionists with their uniformitarian assumptions. Yet such uniformitarian assumptions about earth history are just as irrational as other evolutionary "science" arguments promoted on televised nature shows--and endorsed even in federal courts--to rationalize "willing ignorance" of God's sovereign role as earth's Creator.

Meanwhile, at the personal level, the Christian apologist should clarify (to those "with ears to hear") the ultimate example of cause-and-effect analysis: Accept the truth (as Noah did) or pay the consequences, sooner or later. Everyone must make an eternal choice about God, but the consequences of that choice are locked into the choice selected. Unlike "global warming," there is no reasonable doubt about the underlying truth of God's redemption offer in His beloved Son, in whom He is well pleased. <https://www.icr.org/article/oil-companies-global-warming-hurricanes/>

--GEOENGINEERING AND THE POST-FLOOD ICE AGE ~~
BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. * (ICR) - | (JANUARY 03, 2019)
--[LINK AT BOTTOM]

----Harvard scientists are planning to inject a small cloud of tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. They then hope to study the behavior of these particles. This effort, called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), is designed to obtain information relevant to geoengineering—an attempt to deliberately cool the climate as a means to fight global warming.

In the experiment, scheduled for later this year, a high altitude balloon will release a small amount of calcium carbonate (chalk) into the stratosphere. The calcium carbonate (CaCO3) should spread out, forming a long, thin, cylindrical column of particles. The balloon will repeatedly fly back and forth through this CaCO3 cloud, taking measurements of its behavior.

Scientists think that such a cloud, if large enough, could reflect a significant amount of sunlight back into space, causing noticeable cooling on Earth. They have good reason to believe this. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines belched out a large amount of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Through a series of chemical reactions, small sulfuric acid droplets formed and remained in the stratosphere for quite some time. These tiny droplets reflected enough sunlight back into space to cause a noticeable drop in global temperatures of about 1° Fahrenheit, a phenomenon that lasted more than a year. The SCoPEx scientists think that the right kind of particles, if injected into the stratosphere, could likewise cause cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space.

**Geoengineering is controversial because of the possibility that we might unintentionally affect the climate in some unforeseen, negative manner.**
However, this experiment seems quite safe. The scientists are using chalk, because it is thought that chalk is less likely to negatively affect the ozone layer. Also, the amount of chalk being used is quite small.

This experiment is of interest for two reasons. First, it touches on the debate over “climate change” (or “global warming”). Although independent ICR research confirmed a prolonged warming period during the latter part of the 20th century, this issue does not warrant panic or alarmism. Likewise, there is evidence that the warming trend has leveled off in the last twenty years.

Second, this experiment reminds us of how explosive volcanic eruptions, like the Pinatubo eruption, helped cause the post-Flood Ice Age.

During the Genesis Flood, = hot magma from the mantle rapidly formed new seafloor at the ocean ridges. The heat from this massive outpouring of magma greatly warmed the world’s oceans. This heat significantly increased evaporation from the ocean surface, putting much more moisture into the atmosphere. That resulted in large amounts of rainfall as well as heavy snowfall on mountaintops and at higher latitudes.

However, an Ice Age also requires little or no melting of the winter snowfall during the summer months. Over many years, this lack of melting would allow snow and ice to accumulate, forming thick ice sheets. Cooler summers are the key to meeting this Ice Age requirement.

Observations have shown that explosive volcanic eruptions can cause slight but noticeable cooling, especially during the summer months. So, both creation and uniformitarian scientists recognize that explosive volcanic eruptions can theoretically cause a cooling of the climate. And both creation and uniformitarian scientists agree that past volcanic activity dwarfed any that we have witnessed in recent history. So why can’t uniformitarian scientists definitively claim that volcanoes helped to cause an ice age?

The answer is simple: Their belief in millions of years is holding them back. Because they insist that these volcanic eruptions were separated by millions of years, any cooling that those volcanoes might have provided would be so diluted over time that they would have no significant effect on the climate.

But in reality, these massive eruptions occurred during the Genesis Flood and in the centuries after. A large number of giant explosive volcanic eruptions occurring during a short time is a potent mechanism for providing the summer cooling needed for an Ice Age. But secular scientists’ belief in millions of years is preventing them from making effective use of this mechanism in their ice age theories.

The Bible’s short timescale is...the key to solving many mysteries of Earth history—including the Ice Age.
The Bible’s short timescale is not a “problem” for which embarrassed Christians need to apologize. Rather, it’s the key to solving many mysteries of Earth history—including the Ice Age.~~
--LINK FROM ICR/ <https://www.icr.org/article/geoengineering-and-the-post-flood-ice-age>
-------------

--Interesting / "The Great Global Warming Swindle
From: Wisdom Land (internet)--Full Documentary ~ (8/19/2018)
-This is quite lengthy. This is not a Christian's Viewpoint. / Strictly Scientific~

Click on the link below to listen and watch. Turn up your speakers.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ>
-------------

Climate Alarmism and the Age of the Earth
BY JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 2019

Many evangelical Christians think global warming is a serious issue that demands drastic action.1 At the Institute for Creation Research we tend to be skeptical of the claim that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) will cause Earth to overheat.2 Climate change proponents say their case is built on scientific evidence. However, old-earth beliefs actually make a major contribution to climate change alarmism.

Climate Sensitivity

The real issue in the climate change debate is climate sensitivity.3 If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double while everything else stayed the same, the increase in global average surface temperatures would be small, only about 1°C (less than 2°F).4

However, our climate is complicated, and a change in one thing inevitably causes a response somewhere else. Some of these responses are called negative feedbacks, which minimize or oppose a warming tendency. On the other hand, positive feedbacks enhance the initial warming. If climate sensitivity is high, then the effect of positive feedbacks will dominate and there will be a large increase in temperature after the climate has settled down. But if climate sensitivity is low, then the negative feedbacks will tend to balance the positive feedbacks, resulting in a smaller temperature increase.

Scientists worried about climate change tend to think climate sensitivity is very high. Those who are less concerned believe climate sensitivity is low. If we ignore questionable research, there are two main reasons some researchers think climate sensitivity is high.

Computer Climate Models

The first reason arises from predictions made by computer climate models. Many of these models have predicted large amounts of warming. However, the climate is a complex system, and scientists don’t fully understand it. So, these computer models use simplifying assumptions, premises that may be in error.5 In fact, there’s good reason to think these assumptions are in error. Most climate models have, in the past, predicted more warming than we later actually observed.2

One can also use basic physics to estimate climate sensitivity. This is hard to do, but it theoretically should be more reliable than the results of computer models. Interestingly, one such recent study suggests that climate sensitivity is relatively low.5,6

The Astronomical Theory

The second argument for high climate sensitivity comes from old-earth beliefs about past climate change. Secular scientists interpret chemical “wiggles” in deep seafloor sediments as a record of 50 or so ice ages within the past 2.6 million years. However, creation scientists think secular scientists are seriously misinterpreting the sediment data and that there’s strong evidence for only one Ice Age. We think the Genesis Flood caused this Ice Age about 4,500 years ago and that it lasted just hundreds of years.7

In the secular view, our climate slowly alternates between colder glacials (ice ages) and warmer interglacials. Secular scientists think the timing of ice ages is controlled by changes in the way sunlight striking the Earth is distributed with latitude and season. They think these sunlight changes are themselves caused by variations in Earth’s orbital and rotational motions. This particular belief about past climate change is called the astronomical or Milankovitch ice age theory.

The astronomical theory has many problems. First, evidence for the theory is weak, as discussed below. Second, the changes in sunlight are so small that it’s difficult to see how they alone could cause ice ages. Well-known secular astronomer Fred Hoyle once ridiculed the Milankovitch theory for this very reason.7 The astronomical theory only works if these small changes in sunlight can somehow be amplified.

Paleoclimatologists [scientists who study ancient climates] have long recognized that the amount of Milankovitch-induced change in solar heating is too small to melt glaciers or to send Earth into a deep freeze, unless some as yet unidentified part of the climate system amplifies it.8

The Astronomical Theory and Climate Sensitivity

So, what do secular scientists think is amplifying these small changes in sunlight? If you guessed carbon dioxide, go to the head of the class!

Simulations with global climate models show that the amplitude [size] of glacial-interglacial temperature changes can only be reproduced if CO2 changes are accounted for.…This leads us to conclude that CO2 changes are an important (feedback) factor in determining glacial-interglacial temperature changes although the ultimate cause of the ice age cycles are Earth’s orbital cycles.9
Figure 1. The circular reasoning used by uniformitarian (old-earth) scientists to conclude that climate sensitivity is high.


Do you follow the reasoning? Secular scientists have convinced themselves that the Milankovitch theory is correct. However, they realize the changes in sunlight predicted by the theory are too small to alone cause ice ages. Furthermore, computer models can only reproduce supposed past temperature changes if the models assume that CO2 helps amplify the effect of these small changes (Figure 1). In other words, they assume CO2 is a major positive feedback. They also assume that the negative feedbacks that are known to exist will not be large enough to resist this CO2-enhanced warming. One scientist makes the argument this way:

Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet’s average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past temperature changes be explained?10

He goes on to say:

The main limit on the [climate] sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimate data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes – basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example.10

Obviously, these conclusions are only correct if the astronomical theory itself is correct. So, how strong is the evidence for the theory?

The Astronomical Theory: What’s the Evidence?

Evidence for the astronomical theory is not strong at all. I am aware of only two papers that come anywhere close to providing objective evidence for the astronomical theory, even by secular, old-earth reckoning. Original ICR research revealed very serious problems with the first paper.11,12 The second paper purports to confirm the theory but is not very convincing. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to discreetly “prop up” the first paper.8,13,14

Two factors make the theory seem much stronger than it really is. One is the sheer number of published papers on the subject. An internet search for “Milankovitch theory” produces more than 100,000 results! However, nearly all the technical papers on the subject simply assume the theory to be correct. Secular scientists then use that assumption to assign ages to ice and deep-sea cores and/or to draw conclusions about past or future climate change.
Figure 2. Chart showing a close agreement, apparently lasting hundreds of thousands of years, between inferred temperatures and global ice volume. The blue and green lines reflect temperature changes inferred from chemical measurements in two Antarctic ice cores. The red line is global ice volume inferred from chemical measurements in deep-sea sediment cores. Despite appearances, charts such as these are not strong arguments either for an old earth or for the astronomical theory.
Copyright © Robert A. Rohde. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

The second factor is the existence of charts such as the one in Figure 2. These kinds of charts are extremely common in both popular and technical science publications. The blue and green lines are changes in temperature inferred from the chemistry of two deep Antarctic ice cores. The red line is global ice volume inferred from the chemistry of deep-sea sediments. Note that the red pattern is upside down, with “high” ice volumes at the bottom and “low” ice volumes at the top. The three sets of wiggles seem to track very well with each other. Ice volume increases when temperature falls and decreases when temperature rises. It looks like all three lines are telling a consistent story about climate change over the last 450,000 years. Furthermore, it’s not too hard to show that the times of greatest ice volume agree with Milanovitch expectations.

This might seem to be an incredibly powerful argument for both an old earth and the astronomical theory. If independent datasets are telling the same story about climate change over hundreds of thousands of years, how can any reasonable person doubt either millions of years or the astronomical theory?

Orbital Tuning Tailors the Results

But the appearance of this argument’s validity is actually superficial because the datasets are not independent. When scientists extract cores from the ocean floor and ice sheets, the cores don’t come with marked ages. Secular scientists recognize that radioisotope dating methods are of little help in dating the cores. For this reason, they use the astronomical theory to assign ages to the cores in a process called orbital tuning.15 They think that maximum and minimum values of chemical wiggles in the cores indicate the deepest parts of cold glacials and the warmest parts of warm interglacials. Furthermore, they think the astronomical theory gives them the times in the prehistoric past at which these climate changes occurred. The tuning process requires some sections of the wiggly patterns to be “squished” and other sections to be “stretched” in an accordion-like fashion.

Orbital tuning involves a huge potential for self-deception because it gives the “tuner” the freedom to selectively stretch and compress different parts of the chemical wiggle patterns in the sediment and ice cores. With this freedom, there’s a good chance that the tuner can force the pattern to look like those shown in Figure 2. This is true even if the wiggles have nothing at all to do with climate. This means you can force the patterns to agree with the Milankovitch theory even if the theory is wrong! Even secular scientists have given pointed warnings about the dangers of circular reasoning in orbital tuning.14-16 This is why Figure 2, despite appearances, is really not a strong argument for the astronomical theory. The wiggly patterns agree with the theory because orbital tuning made them agree!

An Informed Response

Before Christians jump on the climate change bandwagon, they need to understand why secular scientists are making the claims they do. These scientists say our climate is very sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide (CO2) because of the results of computer climate models and their old-earth interpretation of chemical wiggles in deep-sea sediments. However, the computer models are likely overestimating climate sensitivity. Likewise, the old-earth interpretation of deep-sea sediment data is coming from the astronomical (Milankovitch) ice age theory. Yet there is little, if any, evidence for this theory, even by secular reckoning.

God gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability. Tweet: God gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability. Climate Alarmism and the Age of the Earth: https://www.icr.org/article/climate-alarmism-age-earth/ @ICRscience #SeriousScience #Research

Although Christians should certainly practice good stewardship over the earth, we don’t need to succumb to demands for drastic action based on faulty science and millions-of-years manipulations. We’d expect climate sensitivity to be low because God has designed Earth and its systems and gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability (Genesis 8:22).