Conservation Clashes

Last issue’s environment article got the most response. Most of the “anti” letters
believed we had been “taken in” by environmentalist propaganda using poor science.
We have no agenda in this, and try to take a balanced view. In fact, we have long
stocked Mike Oard’s book Weather which takes a sceptical view of greenhouse, etc.
We would therefore have been happy to publicize here any objections of substance.
But none of the alleged problems seem to compel allegiance; we list the main ones
here, followed by comment in brackets.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
* Ozone (O3) is formed by UV light’s action on O2, so it can’t protect from UV
light. [The wavelengths involved differ in each case. O3’s UV-blocking properties
are based on straightforward measurement.]
* Water vapour’s greenhouse properties are so much greater than CO2 as to render
man-made increases in the latter negligible. [No quantitative data was supplied. We
mentioned water’s greenhouse effect first—it’s well known to physicists on all
sides of the debate.]
* The CO2 readings from Mauna Loa are ruled out because of the nearby active
volcano. [The rising atmospheric CO2 trend (i) is expected from commonsense
chemistry (ii) spans decades and (iii) is mirrored by sampling from several
widespread locations.]
* Volcanoes produce gases which also react with the ozone layer, so why ban CFC
(refrigerant) gases? [Is this like saying, “Why quit smoking, since a lot of cancer
is already produced by natural radiation?” But in any case we did not support or
oppose CFC bans.]
* CFCs are much heavier than air, so they can’t rise high enough to affect the
ozone layer. [This ignores actual upper atmospheric sampling. Gases tend to mix.
Ozone is much heavier than air, but it’s “up there’, too.]
* When ice floating in a glass melts, there is no change in water level, thus
melting icecaps will not raise sea level. [(i) Much of the Antarctic ice sits on
land; (ii) Expansion of warmer seas is a major reason for predicting sea level
rise.]
Brad Pemberton of Georgia, USA, loved the article, adding that Lake Superior used
to be thought the world’s largest freshwater lake when surface area was the
criterion, but Lake Baikal is cited today for its bigger volume. However, “both
Lakes Baikal and Superior are dwarfed by Lake Michigan-Huron” (these two lakes, he
says, are technically one since the water flows both ways between them) in both
area and volume.
Mike McDaniel of Texas, USA, addressed the sidebar commentary “20% of the world’s
population consumes 80% of its resources”, pointing out that a horse-drawn plow
uses no diesel, but capitalist farmers feed much of the world. For the record, we
also pointed out the shocking pollution history of socialist countries.
Argon anxieties
The Mount St Helens radiodating article (Creation23(3):23-25) drew some attacks
from long-agers who generally missed the point. Of course the “millions of years”
dates from this recent volcanic rock were because the sample contained some non-
radiogenic argon. But a prime assumption in potassium-argon dating is that there is
no non-radiogenic argon present (note that radiogenic and non-radiogenic 40Ar are
identical). Thus one of the assumptions of the method has failed the test. Put
another way—if experiments like those we often publish consistently show that one
can’t trust the method on rocks of known age, how is it rational to believe the
“millions of years” results for rocks of unknown age?
Day dreamers
Thanks to Haddorn Thorn of Essex, England, for gently pointing out that on p. 39 of
Creation24(1), “Days 4 and 5” should have read “Days 5 and 6”. Of course, no
animals were created on Day 4. Blush.
Pollution Evolution

NPR: “Toxic Avengers: Pollution Drove Fish Evolution” Another prominently reported
example of “evolution” illustrates just the opposite—and supports the creationist
critique of Darwinian evolution.
NPR reports on tomcod fish living in heavily polluted New York and New Jersey
rivers. General Electric companies discharged waste products into the rivers for
years, and by the 1980s nineteen out of every twenty tomcod in some areas had liver
tumors.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
But a new study of tomcod populations in the rivers reveals that, surprisingly,
some of the fish populations inhabiting the river today are doing just fine. New
York University toxicologist Isaac Wirgin found in the course of his study that a
number of tomcod populations were “very resistant” to the toxins that had been
discharged in the river. In a perfect example of natural selection, a small group
of fish who were resistant to the toxins thrived while fish without resistance died
off, leaving populations of all-resistant fish.
Creationists emphasize that nearly all cases of so-called “evolution” are actually
examples of natural selection, whereby the makeup of a population changes over time
because some individuals survive better than others. This is considerably different
from the “molecules-to-man” meaning of evolution, which suggests that new mutations
confer new abilities in the population that did not exist before—and that, over
millions of years, these new abilities can turn single-celled life into mammals. In
fact, Wirgin specifically points out that the toxin resistance in the surviving
tomcod is not due to genetic mutation.
Although evolutionists cannot deny that most mutations (even those with some
benefit) carry a price, Darwinian evolution requires hundreds of millions of years
of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Moreover, creationists make the argument that natural selection often comes with
compromise: while the surviving individuals may be more fit in some ways, there is
actually a reduction of fitness or overall genetic information in the population.
Duke University toxicologist Richard Di Giulio, commenting on Wirgin’s research,
notes that the resistance of killifish in Virginia to another pollutant made it
harder for the fish to cope with “natural stressors,” including decreasing oxygen
levels and rising temperatures in the water. Although evolutionists cannot deny
that most mutations (even those with some benefit) carry a price, Darwinian
evolution requires hundreds of millions of years of beneficial mutations
accumulating. If all beneficial mutations we observe come with a price (some quite
steep), that casts more doubt on the Darwinian story.
Thus, yet another headline about “evolution” in action actually serves to reinforce
the creationist argument that natural selection—which is entirely compatible with
biblical creation—works in the opposite direction of Darwinian evolution.
For more information:
* Get Answers: Environmentalism
* Get Answers: Mutations
________________

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know
about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, Fox News,
MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most
likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have
submitted great news tips to us.
(Please note that links will take you directly to the source. Answers in Genesis is
not responsible for content on the websites to which we refer. For more
information, please see our Privacy Policy.)
The Collapse of the Canopy Model
by Bodie Hodge on September 25, 2009
Featured in Feedback
Share:
* *
*
Why does AiG suggest not using the vapor canopy model? Bodie Hodge, AiG–U.S.,
explains why the model fails biblically and scientifically.
I know that most Creation Scientists are now shying away from teaching the “Canopy
Theory.” What I seem to mostly read is that they can’t make a “computer model”
work. 2 questions. 1. Isn’t it somewhat arrogant (for lack of a better word) to
think that we know all of the variables involved with something like this, and to
be able to input it all into a computer? I can’t help but think about something
like the bumblebee, that science still says “shouldn’t be able to fly,” but yet
there they are in my back yard. 2. The fact that 70% of the earth’s surface is
water helps the earth to maintain a more consistant temperature, which in turn
allows us to survive here. Before the flood, most of this water was deep under
ground. What mechanism (or system) do you propose to help the earth maintain it’s
temperatures without all that water, if not a canopy? Thank you all so much for
your ministry, and keep up the good work! God Bless you.

—J.M., U.S.
________________

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. I understand your concerns regarding
the traditional canopy model,1 and when it comes to all the variables you are
absolutely right. The canopy models had some problems (for example, solar radiation
would have to decrease by around 25%.)2
In brief, the canopy models gained popularity thanks to the work of Joseph Dillow,
and many creationists have since researched various aspects of this scientific
model. The canopy model was developed from an interpretation of the “waters above”
in Genesis 1:6–7 when discussing the firmament (or expanse).
Genesis 1:6–7
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament (expanse) in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament (expanse),
and divided the waters which were under the firmament (expanse) from the waters
which were above the firmament (expanse); and it was so.
From these verses, scientific models were developed and modified to help deal with
problems that arose. These models included ideas about the earth’s temperature,
atmospheric color, as well as oxygen concentration (to attempt to explain ancient
man’s longevity).
The proposed models have this canopy fading into history at the time of the Flood.
Researchers thought it could have provided at least some of the water for the Flood
and was associated with the “windows of heaven” mentioned along with the fountains
of the great deep at the onset of the Flood (Genesis 7:11).
Currently, the pitfalls of the canopy model have grown to such an extent that most
researchers have abandoned the model. For example, if a canopy existed and
collapsed at the time of the Flood to supply the rainfall, the latent heat of
condensation would have boiled the atmosphere! And a viable canopy would not have
had enough water vapor in it to sustain 40 days and nights of torrential global
rain.
Biblical Problems
Aside from the scientific analysis, there may be a much bigger issue at play: if
the canopy really was part of earth’s atmosphere, then all the stars, sun, and moon
would have been created within the earth's atmosphere.
Why is this? A closer look at Genesis 1:14 reveals that the “waters above” may very
well be much farther out—if they still exist today. The entirety of the stars,
including our own sun (the greater light) and moon (lesser light) could not
possibly be in our atmosphere, since they were made “in the expanse.”3
In Genesis 1, some have made distinction between the expanse in which the birds fly
(Genesis 1:20) and the expanse in which the sun, moon, and stars were placed
(Genesis 1:7). This is not a distinction that is necessary from the text. From the
Hebrew, the birds are said to fly “across the face of the firmament of the
heavens.” Looking up at a bird flying across the sky, it would be seen against the
face of both the atmosphere and the space beyond the atmosphere—the “heavens.” The
proponents of the canopy model must make a distinction between these two expanses
to support their position, but this is an arbitrary assertion that is only
necessary to support their view and is not described elsewhere in Scripture.4
Genesis 1:14–15
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament (expanse) of the heavens to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days
and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament (expanse) of the heavens to
give light on the earth”; and it was so.5
There is also another problem.
Psalm 148:4
Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!
The psalmist wrote this in a post-Flood world in the context of other post-Flood
aspects. So, it appears that the windows of heaven still exist at this point (see
also 2 Kings 7:2, 19 and Malachi 3:10). And this is complemented by:
Genesis 8:2
The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain
from heaven was restrained.
This verse merely points out that the two sources were stopped and restrained, not
necessarily done away with. These two verses suggest that the windows of heaven
remained after the Flood. The canopy model would have to explain when and how they
suddenly dissipated, and without any basis for this in Scripture.
Temperatures
To answer the question about how the earth regulates its temperature without a
canopy, consider that it may not have been that much different than the way it
regulates it today—atmosphere and oceans. Although there may have been much water
underground prior to the Flood, there was obviously enough at or near the surface
to sustain immense amounts of sea life. We know this because nearly 95% of the
fossil record consists of marine organisms. Was the earth’s surface around 70%
water or not before the Flood? That is a question researchers still debate over.
A canopy, on the other hand, would cause major problems for the regulation of
earth’s temperature. A canopy would trap and retain heat that would normally
radiate to space.
Biblical Models
Answers in Genesis continues to encourage research and the development of
scientific models. However, a good grasp of all biblical passages that are relevant
to the topic must precede the scientific research and model. The canopy model may
have a glimmer of hope still remaining, and I will leave that to the researchers,
but both the biblical and scientific difficulties need to be addressed thoroughly.
I pray this helps clarify.
Bodie
Alabama’s Underwater Forest
Creation Model
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on July 1, 2015; last featured December 4, 2016
Featured in Answers Magazine
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
Remnants of a cypress forest were recently discovered off Alabama’s coast. What
climate changes could explain such a massive rise in ocean level?
Sixty feet (18 m) beneath the green waves of the Gulf of Mexico, about 15 miles (24
km) off the Alabama coast, lie the remnants of an ancient forest of giant cypress
trees.1 For hundreds of yards (meters), the stumps follow the lazy meanders of what
appears to be an ancient river channel that flows down from the coast, near the
place where two present-day rivers spill into the sea through the Mobile-Tensaw
River Delta.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
How did a forest ever grow here, and when did the ocean level rise enough to bury a
forest and river? That’s an interesting question, showing that ocean levels have
fluctuated dramatically since Noah’s Flood. Global warming and coastal flooding are
not just modern worries!
Stumps are scattered across the seafloor 4–5 feet (1.2–1.5 m) apart, spaced just as
they would be in a modern floodplain forest on the banks of a coastal river. The
stumps along the edge of the old river channel are the most exposed, in some cases
rising as much as 5 feet (1.5 m) above the bottom, usually beginning with a tangle
of roots and ending in a stump. Some of the trunks are massive, stretching up to 10
feet (3 m) across. Away from the river channel’s edge, more stumps dot the
seafloor, but they are seldom as big, and they seldom rise more than a few inches
(up to 10 cm) above the surrounding sand.
The stumps bear the telltale, irregular shapes of cypress, each stump being
surrounded by a ring of cypress knees (knobby wood rising from the roots of swamp-
growing trees), just as in modern cypress forests. Fallen trees are also visible,
too large for divers to wrap their arms around.
Hurricane Ivan blew through the area in 2004, removing the mud and exposing the
stumps. The wood is now rotting but still remarkably well preserved. When cut, the
wood releases the scent of fresh cypress, and fresh sap oozes.
Their presence on the seafloor provides powerful evidence of the massive climate
changes that swept the earth after the global Flood about 4,300 years ago. Water
from the ocean was locked up in massive ice sheets and glaciers for a brief time
during the Ice Age in the centuries after the Flood, causing the sea level to
lower. The cypress forests spread into this newly exposed coastline. Then rapid
melting of the ice sheets about 4,000 years ago flooded the forest, covering the
stumps and fallen logs with thick mud and preserving the wood.
Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has
worked as a consultant research geologist in both Australia and America. Author of
numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers
in Genesis–USA.
Go (Truly) Green—by Starting with Genesis
Earth Day and the foundations of environmental stewardship
by John UpChurch on April 22, 2009; last featured April 22, 2018
Share:
* *
*
Many evolutionists are celebrating Earth Day by telling the world to stop climate
change by “going green.” The great irony is that only the Bible gives a foundation
for taking care of the earth.
The World Created

“Going green” to fight climate change is the cause célèbre, but Christians have a
much firmer foundation than fads for taking care of the earth.
When God created the first humans, He gave them charge over the Garden of Eden to
care for the animals and plants that were there (Genesis 2:15). It was a perfect
world with no sin or death, but God still put Adam there to tend what He had made.
This is highly instructive to all Christians. After all, if God placed Adam there
to care for a perfect world prior to the Fall, how much more should we care for
this fallen one?
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
And that’s something that we should recognize: Christians have the best foundation
to justify caring for this planet—a direct mandate from the One who made it.
Evolutionary naturalists do not understand the past or the future the way God
intended and can offer only arbitrary reasons for being environmentally responsible
—reasons which are self-contradicting, in fact.
To truly celebrate Earth Day in a way that glorifies the One who made it, let’s
take a look at two of the popular reasons that the world tells us we need to “go
green,” and then we’ll look at why the Bible gives us a better foundation for being
good stewards.
False Foundations
Many non-Christians instruct us to care for the planet. However, their reasons for
doing so often lack any real justification when placed under scrutiny. Here are two
of the most popular:
Get Selfish
According to evolutionist E.O. Wilson, the reason we should care for this planet is
because we have an intense self interest:
It follows that human self-interest is best served by not overly harming the other
life forms on Earth that still survive.1
In other words, the main reason we should care for the planet is so that we can
survive. But in an evolutionary worldview, what’s the point? Humans are nothing
more than another evolved organism. If we die off, something else will take our
place. Even the destruction of the entire planet has no moral value other than in
the subjective opinion of some. After all, humans have no more worth than dirt—if
we accept atheism—and a burned-out planet is no “worse” than a fruitful one. It
just is what it is.
Beyond this, according to the evolutionary story of history, the pressures that
humans are exerting upon the planet and animal life should simply cause life to
evolve to survive. Whatever doesn’t survive was simply not fit enough. If this is
the process that worked in the past, then what makes human-caused changes any
different than animal predation or natural disasters? Once we allow that human
actions are different somehow, then we’ve associated moral value to them, which is
illogical in a purely naturalistic worldview; after all, morals themselves have
supposedly evolved because of the very environmental pressures that evolutionists
are disparaging.
One of the most common refrains about the environment from the news media goes
something like this: [insert disaster here] is coming if we don’t stop [insert bad
thing some scientists claim we’re doing to destroy the earth]. Recently, most of
these reports are somehow tied to climate change.
While some of the evidence suggests that the earth has warmed recently (see sidebar
for information), many scientists build their conclusions upon a faulty view of
earth’s history. If we start with the Bible, we know how old the earth truly is,
what happened in history (e.g., the global Flood, the one Ice Age), and what will
happen in the future (Revelation 21–22). God is in control and reminds us in His
Word not to be afraid of what tomorrow will bring (Matthew 6:34). Far from being an
excuse to abuse the world, this is the real justification to take care of it—
without resorting to scare tactics and exaggerations of the data.
Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate Change
What is the truth about climate change? Are the ice caps melting? Will polar bears
and penguins soon be found starving on small floating icebergs? Does the future
survival of man hinge on an immediate reduction in carbon emissions? This bold new
documentary is an exciting and important tool for all who face the rampant
misinformation propagated by ecological alarmists.
Enjoy this free presentation of the entire DVD, also available in our bookstore.
In fact, the alarmist claims of climate change are counterproductive because they
establish a political environment in which scientists showing problems with the
currently accepted models are often vilified. This detracts from the main point and
makes the “fight” the focus. Starting from the Bible and the history recorded
there, we should care for the planet as God intended without living in fear over
whether there is global warming or cooling (as some have suggested2).
True Stewardship
Humans are created in the image of God and are not like any other creation. We were
told to use the resources that we have been given and to multiply and fill the
earth (Genesis 1:28). However, we must also understand that the world now groans
from the effects of sin (Romans 8:22). Only God can restore the earth, but the
fallen nature and the promise of restoration are not excuses to ignore the very
first task that God gave humanity in Genesis 2:15. Subduing—being a steward—means
that no matter the state that creation is in, we are here to use the resources
responsibly and to take care of God’s handiwork.3
God’s Word gives us a number of reasons why we have an obligation to care for
creation. However, the two most important and foundational revolve around Jesus’s
response concerning the greatest commandment.
Loving God
According to Jesus, the greatest of all the commandments is to love God with all
our heart, mind, soul, and strength (Mark 12:29–30). If we really love God, that
means taking care of the things He has given us—our lives, the hope that we have,
and this planet. According to the Bible, the earth belongs completely to God (Psalm
24:1; Acts 7:49). We are merely caretakers who are accountable to perform this
task.
Loving Others
Jesus added that the second greatest commandment is like the first—love others as
we love ourselves (Mark 12:31). Obviously, the most important way that a Christian
loves other humans is by sharing the message of salvation and providing for them.
But it’s just as important for us to consider how our actions will impact others.
If we are consciously acting in a way that could harm the earth, that impacts
others around the world and future generations (including our own children). Christ
as the Good Shepherd is our example for showing sacrificial love to others.
The End of Fads
Caring for the earth should never be a cause célèbre (as it sadly has become). The
command God gave us in Genesis 2 was given for all humanity through Adam. This
world is God’s, and we have a responsibility to do all things (including taking
care of His property) as if we were doing it for Him (Colossians 3:17). Sadly, we
Christians have not always heeded this.
The atheistic evolutionary worldview can provide no real foundation for taking care
of the earth. Life has no more value than non-life—other than the selfish desire to
live. When evolutionists speak out about saving the planet, perhaps we should ask
them what difference it makes. Without God, our planet is nothing more than a wet
chunk of space dirt destined to be boiled by the sun one day. No matter what we do,
there is no ultimate hope.
With God, however, our planet is the focus of His love, and our future can be
secure.
Cloudy with a Chance of Confusion
on July 1, 2019
Featured in Answers Magazine
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
The saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 150 times, you must be a
weatherman.”
Meteorology is a well-established science that has only gotten more reliable with
direct satellite observation and supercomputers. So why are weathermen still the
butt of jokes?
Today, forecasts may be accurate up to 10 days, but they are still limited. A
recent study tried to test those limits. The problem is that chaotic turbulence
builds up in the atmosphere until it reaches a point of complete unpredictability—
the so-called butterfly effect. So at what point is it impossible to make a
prediction, even if we know everything about current conditions?
Forecasters decided to recreate two well-documented weather events over 20 days: a
2015 cold snap in Europe and a series of downpours in China in 2016. Within two
weeks, the models had diverged so much from the actual events that they seemed
completely unrelated. If the study is a good indicator, accurate forecasts beyond
two weeks will never be possible.
Weather forecasting is a good reminder of the limits of science. It is a useful
tool, but it is bound by human finiteness and fallibility. We put some trust in the
latest forecast, but we still carry an umbrella just in case.
So why don’t we apply this same healthy skepticism to other branches of science?
Practically everyone recognizes the limits of weather forecasts, yet many speculate
that current physical processes (such as colliding earth plates and radiometric
decay) can be extended back into the unimaginably distant past to prove what the
earth would have looked like if it existed millions of years ago. Such speculation
contradicts what we already know from God’s Word.
Only God knows what the weather will be in a month or two, and only God saw the
creation of the universe 6,000 years ago. We can trust the eyewitness account of
someone who is all-knowing and truthful and exists outside of time.
Chapter 13
What Is the State of the Water Vapor Canopy Model?
Exploring the history of the water vapor canopy model, biblical interpretation
surrounding the model, and how we should approach theories in biblical creation.
by Bodie Hodge on December 18, 2019
Featured in The New Answers Book 4

If there is one thing you need to know about biblical creationists, it's that they
can be divided on a subject. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Though we all have
the same heart to follow Christ and do the best we can for the sake of biblical
authority and the cause of Christ, we can have differences when it comes to details
of models used to explain various aspects of God’s creation.
When divisions occur over scientific models, they helps us dive into an issue in
more detail and discover if that model is good, bad, needs revision, and so on. But
note over what we are divided: it is not the Word of God or even theology; it is a
division over a scientific model.
This is where Christians can rightly be divided on a subject and still do so with
Christian love, and I hope it is in love that Christians conduct themselves — in
“iron-sharpening-iron” dealings on a model while still promoting a heart for the
gospel (Proverbs 27:17).
The debate over a water vapor canopy model is no different — we are all brothers
and sisters in Christ trying to understand what the Bible says and what it doesn’t
say on this subject (2 Timothy 2:15). It is the Bible that reigns supreme on the
issue, and our scientific analysis on the subject will always be subservient to the
Bible’s text.
What Is the Water Vapor Canopy Model(s)?
There are several canopy models, but they all have one thing in common.1 They all
interpret the “waters above” the expanse (firmament) in Genesis 1:7 as some form of
water-based canopy surrounding the earth that endured from creation until the
Flood.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament [expanse] in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament [expanse],
and divided the waters which were under the firmament [expanse] from the waters
which were above the firmament [expanse]; and it was so (Genesis 1:6–7).
Essentially, the waters above are believed to have formed either a vapor, water
(liquid), or ice canopy around the earth. It is the vapor canopy that seemed to
dominate all of the proposed models.2 It is suggested that this canopy was
responsible for several things such as keeping harmful radiation from penetrating
the earth, increasing the surface atmospheric pressure of oxygen, keeping the globe
at a consistent temperature for a more uniform climate around the globe, and
providing one of the sources of water for the Flood.
A Brief History of Water Vapor Canopy Models
Modern canopy models can be traced back to Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb
in their groundbreaking book The Genesis Flood in 1961.3 This book triggered a
return to biblical authority in our age. It is a highly commendable book, and we
owe much to their efforts. In this volume, Whitcomb and Morris introduce the
possibility of a vapor canopy as the waters above.
The canopy models gained popularity thanks to the work of Dr. Joseph Dillow,4 and
many creationists have since researched various aspects of these scientific models,
such as Dr. Larry Vardiman with the Institute for Creation Research.
Researchers have studied the possibility of solid canopies, water canopies, vapor
canopies, thick canopies, thin canopies, and so on. Each model has the canopy
collapsing into history at the time of the Flood. Researchers thought it could have
provided at least some of the water for the Flood and was associated with the 40
days of rain coming from the “windows of heaven” mentioned along with the fountains
of the great deep at the onset of the Flood (Genesis 7:11).
However, the current state of the canopy models have faded to such an extent that
most researchers and apologists have abandoned the various models. Let’s take a
look at the biblical and scientific reasons behind the abandonment.
Biblical Issues
Though both will be discussed, any biblical difficulties that bear on the
discussion of the canopy must trump scientific considerations, as it is the
authority of the Bible that is supreme in all that it teaches.
Interpretations of Scripture Are Not Scripture
The necessity for a water-based canopy about the earth is not directly stated in
the text. It is an interpretation of the text. Keep in mind that it is the text
that is inspired, not our interpretations of it.
Others have interpreted the waters above as something entirely different from a
water-based canopy about the earth. Most commentators appeal to the waters above as
simply being the clouds, which are water droplets (not vapor) in the atmosphere.
For they are simply “waters” that are above.
But most do not limit this interpretation as simply being the clouds, but perhaps
something that reaches deep into space and extends as far as the Third Heaven or
Heaven of Heavens. For example, expositor Dr. John Gill in the 1700s said:
The lower part of it, the atmosphere above, which are the clouds full of water,
from whence rain descends upon the earth; and which divided between them and those
that were left on the earth, and so under it, not yet gathered into one place; as
it now does between the clouds of heaven and the waters of the sea. Though Mr.
Gregory is of the opinion, that an abyss of waters above the most supreme orb is
here meant; or a great deep between the heavens and the heaven of heavens. . . .5
Gill agrees that clouds were inclusive of these waters above but that the waters
also extend to the heaven of heavens, at the outer edge of the universe. Matthew
Poole denotes this possibility as well in his commentary in the 1600s:
. . . the expansion, or extension, because it is extended far and wide, even from
the earth to the third heaven; called also the firmament, because it is fixed in
its proper place, from whence it cannot be moved, unless by force.6
Matthew Henry also concurs that this expanse extends to the heaven of heavens
(third heaven):
The command of God concerning it: Let there be a firmament, an expansion, so the
Hebrew word signifies, like a sheet spread, or a curtain drawn out. This includes
all that is visible above the earth, between it and the third heavens: the air, its
higher, middle, and lower, regions — the celestial globe, and all the spheres and
orbs of light above: it reaches as high as the place where the stars are fixed, for
that is called here the firmament of heaven Ge 1:14,15, and as low as the place
where the birds fly, for that also is called the firmament of heaven, Ge 1:20.7
The point is that a canopy model about the earth is simply that . . . an
interpretation. It should be evaluated as such, not taken as Scripture itself. Many
respected Bible interpreters do not share in the interpretation of the “waters
above” being a water canopy in the upper atmosphere of earth.
Stars for Seasons and Light and other Implications
Another biblical issue crops up when we read in Genesis 1:14–15:
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament [expanse] of the heavens to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days
and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament [expanse] of the heavens to
give light on the earth”; and it was so.8
The stars are intended by God to be used to map seasons. And they were also to
“give light on the earth.” Though this is not much light, it does help
significantly during new moon conditions — that is, if you live in an area not
affected by light pollution.
Water
If the canopy were liquid water, then in its various forms like mist or haze, it
would inhibit seeing these stars. How could one see the stars to map the seasons?
It would be like a perpetually cloudy day. The light would be absorbed or reflected
back to space much the way fog does the headlights of a car. What little light is
transmitted through would not be sufficiently discernable to make out stars and
star patterns to map seasons. Unlike a vapor canopy, clouds are moving and in
motion; one can still see the stars to map seasons when they move through.
Furthermore, if it was water, why didn’t it fall?9
Ice
If it were ice, then it is possible to see the stars. They would not appear in the
positions one normally sees them, but they would still be sufficient to map
seasons. When kept cool, ice tends to coat at the surface where other water
molecules freezes to it (think of the coating you see on an ice cube left in the
freezer). This could inhibit visibility, as evaporated water from the ocean surface
would surely make contact — especially in a sin-cursed and broken world.
Vapor
An invisible vapor canopy in our upper atmosphere makes the most sense, but there
could still be a problem. As cooler vapor nears space, water condenses and begins
to haze, though as long as the vapor in the upper atmosphere is kept warm and above
the dew point, it could remain invisible. But there are a lot of “ifs.” In short,
the stars may not serve their purpose to give light on the earth with some
possibilities within these models.
But consider, if there were a water vapor canopy, what would stop it from
interacting with the rest of the atmosphere that is vapor? Gases mix to
equilibrium, and that is the way God upholds the universe.10 If it was a vapor,
then why it is distinguished from the atmosphere, which is vapor?
The Bible uses the terms waters above, which implies that the temperature is
between 32°F and 212°F (0°C and 100°C). If it was meant to be vapor, then why say
“waters” above? Why not say vapor (hebel), which was used in the Old Testament?
Where Were the Stars Made?
If the canopy really was part of earth’s atmosphere, then all the stars, sun, and
moon would have been created within the earth’s atmosphere. Why is this? A closer
look at Genesis 1:14 reveals that the “waters above” may very well be much farther
out — if they still exist today.
The entirety of the stars, including our own sun (the greater light) and moon
(lesser light) were made “in the expanse.” Further, they are obviously not in our
atmosphere. Recall that the waters of verse 7 are above the expanse. If the canopy
were just outside the atmosphere of the young earth, then the sun, moon, and stars
would have to be in the atmosphere according to verse 14.
Further, the winged creatures were flying in the face of the expanse (Genesis 1:20;
the NKJV accurately translates the Hebrew), and this helps reveal the extent of the
expanse. It would likely include aspects of the atmosphere as well as space. The
Bible calls the firmament “heaven” in Genesis 1:8, which would include both.
Perhaps our understanding of “sky” is similar or perhaps the best translation of
this as well.
Regardless, this understanding of the text allows for the stars to be in the
expanse, and this means that any waters above, which is beyond the stars, is not
limited to being in the atmosphere. Also, 2 Corinthians 12:2 discusses three
heavens, which are likely the atmosphere (airy heavens), space (starry heavens),
and the heaven of heavens (Nehemiah 9:6).
Some have argued that the prepositions in, under, above, etc., are not in the
Hebrew text but are determined from the context, so the meaning in verses 14 and 17
is vague. It is true that the prepositions are determined by the context, so we
must rely on a proper translation of Genesis 1:14. Virtually all translations have
the sun, moon, and stars being created in the expanse, not above as any canopy
model would require.
In Genesis 1, some have attempted to make a distinction between the expanse in
which the birds fly (Genesis 1:20) and the expanse in which the sun, moon, and
stars were placed (Genesis 1:7); this was in an effort to have the sun, moon, and
stars made in the second expanse. This is not a distinction that is necessary from
the text and is only necessary if a canopy is assumed.
From the Hebrew, the birds are said to fly “across the face of the firmament of the
heavens.” If you look up at a bird flying across the sky, you would see it against
the face of both the atmosphere and the space beyond the atmosphere — the
“heavens.” The proponents of the canopy model must make a distinction between these
two expanses to support the position, but this is an arbitrary assertion that is
only necessary to support the view and is not described elsewhere in Scripture.
Expanse (Firmament) Still Existed Post-Flood
Another issue that is raised from the Bible is that the waters above the heavens
were mentioned after the Flood, when it was supposedly gone.
Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! (Psalm
148:4).
So an officer on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God and said,
“Look, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, could this thing be?” And he said,
“In fact, you shall see it with your eyes, but you shall not eat of it” (2 Kings
7:2; see also 2 Kings 7:19).
“Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and
try Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “If I will not open for you the
windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room
enough to receive it” (Malachi 3:10).
The biblical authors wrote these in a post-Flood world in the context of other
post-Flood aspects. So, it appears that the “waters above” and “windows of heaven”
are in reference to something that still existed after the Flood. So “the waters
above” can’t be referring to a long-gone canopy that dissipated at the Flood and
still be present after the Flood. This fact is complemented by the following verse:
The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain
from heaven was restrained (Genesis 8:2).
Genesis 8:2 merely points out that the two sources were stopped and restrained, not
necessarily done away with. The verses above suggest that the windows of heaven
remained after the Flood. Even the “springs of the great deep” were stopped but did
not entirely disappear. However, there may have been residual waters trapped that
have slowly oozed out since that time, though clearly not in any gushing, spring-
like fashion.11
Is a Water Canopy Necessary Biblically?
Finally, is a canopy necessary from the text? At this stage, perhaps not. It was
promoted as a scientific model based on a possible interpretation of Genesis 1 to
deal with several aspects of the overall biblical creation model developed in the
mid-1900s. I don’t say this lightly for my brothers and sisters in the Lord who may
still find it appealing. Last century, I was introduced to the canopy model and
found it fascinating. For years, I had espoused it, but after further study, I
began leaning against it, as did many other creationists.
Old biblical commentators were not distraught at the windows of heaven or the
waters not being a canopy encircling the earth. Such an interpretation was not
deemed necessary in their sight. In fact, this idea is a recent addition to
scriptural interpretation that is less than 100 years old. The canopy model was a
scientific interpretation developed in an effort to help explain certain aspects of
the text to those who were skeptical of the Bible’s accounts of earth history, but
when it comes down to it, it is not necessary and even has some serious biblical
issues associated with it.
Scientific Issues
Clearly, there are some biblical issues that are difficult to overcome. Researchers
have often pointed out the scientific issues of the canopy model as well. A couple
will be denoted below.
This is no discredit to the researchers by any means. The research was valuable and
necessary to see how the model may or may not work with variations and types. The
development and testing of models is an important part of scientific inquiry, and
we should continue to do so with many models to help us understand the world God
has given us. So I appreciate and applaud all the work that has been done, and I
further wish to encourage researchers to study other aspects to see if anything was
missed.
Temperatures
To answer the question about how the earth regulates its temperature without a
canopy, consider that it may not have been that much different than the way it
regulates it today — by the atmosphere and oceans. Although there may have been
much water underground prior to the Flood, there was obviously enough at or near
the surface to sustain immense amounts of sea life. We know this because of the
well-known figure that nearly 95 percent of the fossil record consists of shallow-
water marine organisms. Was the earth’s surface around 70 percent water before the
Flood? That is a question creationist researchers still debate.
An infinitely knowledgeable God would have no problem designing the earth in a
perfect world to have an ideal climate (even with variations like the cool of the
day Genesis 3:8) where people could have filled the earth without wearing clothes
(Genesis 2:25, 1:28). In a cursed world not yet rearranged by the Flood, the earth
would surely have been better equipped to deal with regulated temperatures and
climate.
A vapor canopy, on the other hand, would cause major problems for the regulation of
earth’s temperature. A vapor canopy would absorb both solar and infrared radiation
and become hot, which would heat the surface by conduction downward. The various
canopy models have therefore been plagued with heat problems from the greenhouse
effect. For example, solar radiation would have to decrease by around 25 percent to
make the most plausible model work.12 The heat problem actually makes this model
very problematic and adds a problem rather than helping to explain the environment
before the Flood.13
The Source of Water
The primary source of water for the Flood was the springs of the great deep
bursting forth (Genesis 7:11). This water in turn likely provided some of the water
in the “windows of heaven” in an indirect fashion. There is no need for an ocean of
vapor above the atmosphere to provide for extreme amounts of water for the rain
that fell during the Flood.
For example, if Dillow’s vapor canopy existed (40 feet of precipitable water) and
collapsed at the time of the Flood to supply, in large part, the rainfall, the
latent heat of condensation would have boiled the atmosphere! And a viable canopy
would not have had enough water vapor in it to sustain 40 days and nights of
torrential global rain as in Vardiman’s model (2–6 feet of precipitable water).
Thus, the vapor canopy doesn’t adequately explain the rain at the Flood.
Longevity
Some have appealed to a canopy to increase surface atmospheric pressures prior to
the Flood. The reasoning is to allow for better healing as well as living longer
and bigger as a result. However, increased oxygen (and likewise oxidation that
produces dangerous free radicals), though beneficial in a few respects, is mostly a
detriment to biological systems. Hence, antioxidants (including things like
catalase and vitamins E, A, and C) are very important to reduce these free radicals
within organisms.
Longevity (and the large size of many creatures) before and after the Flood is
better explained by genetics through the bottlenecks of the Flood and the Tower of
Babel as opposed to pre-Flood oxygen levels due to a canopy. Not to belabor these
points, this idea has already been discussed elsewhere.14
Pre-Flood Climate
Regardless of canopy models, creationists generally agree that climate before the
Fall was perfect. This doesn’t mean the air was stagnant and 70°F every day, but
instead had variations within the days and nights (Genesis 3:8). These variations
were not extreme but very reasonable.
Consider that Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth
(Genesis 1:27). In a perfect world where there was no need for clothes to cover sin
(this came after the Fall), we can deduce that man should have been able to fill
the earth without wearing clothes, hence the extremes were not as they are today or
the couple would have been miserable as the temperatures fluctuated.
Even after the Fall, it makes sense that these weather variations were minimally
different. But with the global Flood that destroyed the earth and rearranged
continents and so on, the extremes become pronounced — we now have ice caps and
extremely high mountains that were pushed up from the Flood (Psalm 104:8). We now
have deserts that have extreme heat and cold and little water.
Biblical Models and Encouragement
Answers in Genesis continues to encourage research and the development of
scientific and theological models. However, a good grasp of all biblical passages
that are relevant to the topic must precede the scientific research and models, and
the Bible must be the ultimate judge over all of our conclusions.
The canopy model may have a glimmer of hope still remaining, and that will be left
to the proponents to more carefully explain, but both the biblical and scientific
difficulties need to be addressed thoroughly and convincingly for the model to be
embraced. So we do look forward to future research.
In all of this, we must remember that scientific models are not Scripture, and it
is the Scripture that we should defend as the authority. While we must surely
affirm that the waters above were divided from the waters below, the canopy model
should be held loosely lest we misinterpret Scripture with limited scientific
understanding.
Master Books has graciously granted AiG permission to publish selected chapters of
this book online. To purchase a copy please visit our online store.
Footnotes
1. This is not to be confused with canopy ideas that have the edge of water at or
near the end of the universe (e.g., white hole cosmology), but instead the models
that have a water canopy in the atmosphere, e.g., like those mentioned in J.C.
Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1961); J.C. Dillow, The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor
Canopy, Revised Edition (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981); or John C. Whitcomb, The
World that Perished (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2009).
2. This is in large part due to the influence of Joseph Dillow, whose scientific
treatise left only the vapor models with any potential. He writes on page 422 of
his treatise: “We showed that only a vapor canopy model can satisfactorily meet the
requirements of a the necessary support mechanism.” Dillow, The Waters Above:
Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy.
3. Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood.
4. Dillow, The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy.
5. John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, Genesis 1:7.
6. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Genesis 1:7.
7. Matthew Henry, A Commentary on the Whole Bible, Genesis 1:7.
8. See also Genesis 1:17.
9. Would one appeal to the supernatural? If so, it defeats the purpose of this
scientific model that seeks to explain things in a naturalistic fashion.
10. Again, would one appeal to the supernatural? If so, it defeats the purpose of
this scientific model that seeks to explain things in a naturalistic fashion.
11. I would leave open the option that this affected the ocean sea level to a small
degree but the main reasons for changing sea level was via the Ice Age.
12. For more on this see “Temperature Profiles for an Optimized Water Vapor Canopy”
by Dr. Larry Vardiman, a researcher on this subject for over 25 years at the time
of writing that paper; https://icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Temperature-Profiles-for-an-
Optimized-Water-Vapor-Canopy.pdf.
13. Another issue is the amount of water vapor in the canopy. Dillow’s 40 feet of
precipitable water, the amount collected after all the water condenses, has major
heat problems. But Vardiman’s view has modeled canopies with 2 to 6 feet of
precipitable water with better temperature results and we look forward to seeing
future research.
14. Ken Ham, ed., New Answers Book 2 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2008), p.
159–168; Bodie Hodge, Tower of Babel (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2013), p.
205–212.
The Climate Connection
by Ken Ham on January 1, 2020
Featured in Answers Magazine
When people reject the Bible, they will misinterpret why the world is changing—
including the climate.
One concerns spiritual climate change. Now, the media reporters don’t discuss it
this way, but as they write and talk about issues that are increasingly permeating
the culture, such as gay “marriage,” transgender, abortion, and euthanasia, they
are actually reporting on spiritual climate change.
The second climate change concerns the changing physical climates on the earth, and
discussions of whether man has caused these changes and whether this will lead to a
doomsday scenario in the very near future.
Now, there is a connection between these two types of climate change.
The secular education systems of the entire world are, by and large, teaching
generations of students that science has proved the universe and all life
(including humans) arose by natural processes. Students are indoctrinated to
believe that astronomical, biological, geological, and anthropological evolution
are fact. As a result, increasing numbers in each generation believe the Bible is
not a true book of history but is a book of mythology.
The more people believe that there is no God and that they arose by natural
processes, the more they will build a worldview consistent with this belief. The
best way to summarize their worldview is to apply this verse of Scripture to their
situation: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right
in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
In other words, when people reject the absolute authority of God’s Word, ultimately
anything goes regarding their worldview. Right and wrong are a matter of their
subjective decision. As a result of such a worldview, we would expect to see moral
relativism permeating the culture—which is exactly what we see. This is resulting
in a massive spiritual climate change, particularly in the West, that has had a
predominantly Christianized worldview built on the Judeo-Christian ethic found in
the Bible.
Now, when people reject the Bible (including the book of Genesis) as a book of
history, they are rejecting the account of a perfect creation that has been
affected by the entrance of sin and God’s judgment of death and the curse. They
also reject the account of the geological, globally catastrophic event of the flood
of Noah’s day.
God’s Word tells us that, because of man’s fall, the whole of creation now groans:
“For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of
childbirth until now” (Romans 8:22).
God no longer “holds together” the creation by the power of his hand (Colossians
1:17) in the perfect way it was originally made. Everything is running down because
of the effects of sin. This affects every aspect of the physical creation,
including climate.
Approximately 1,600 years after creation, we read in the Bible that God judged the
earth with a cataclysmic event—the global flood. This flood devastated the surface
of the earth and led to dramatic climate changes. After the flood, there were
warmer oceans (due to plate movements, heat from the earth’s mantle, and so on) and
lots of ash and other particles in the atmosphere (such as from volcanic activity).
This led to a catastrophic ice age with the formation of massive glaciers. Along
with such drastic changes would come severe storms, hurricanes, and other weather
disturbances.
Ever since the flood, the climates on earth have been changing, settling down from
this major catastrophe. It was cooler during the ice age but has since been
warming. Some areas of desert today were fertile areas hundreds or thousands of
years ago. The glaciers that arose during the post-flood ice age have been melting
back as temperatures have risen. These fluctuations in climate have occurred as the
earth settles down from the effects of the events associated with the flood.
But we need to understand that if people reject that the flood caused one major ice
age, they will not understand what has been happening to climates over the past
4,300 years since the flood. And many people don’t understand that ocean currents
and phases of the sun’s activity have a major bearing on earth’s climates too.
Now, this is not to say that humans are free to pollute the earth as much as they
want. Man was given dominion over the earth, but this means we need to look after
the creation, using it for man’s good and God’s glory. We need to do the best we
can to take care of this fallen, cursed world.
However, if people reject the event of the global flood as recorded in the Bible,
they will not understand what has happened on this earth regarding physical climate
change, or why glaciers were much more extensive in the past (such as the glacier-
carved valleys in Wyoming). And if people reject God’s Word as the absolute
authority and foundation for their thinking, they will not understand the
connection to the spiritual climate change as people decide whatever morality they
want for their lives.
To build a way of thinking that correctly interprets spiritual and physical climate
change, one must start with the true history of the earth and all life as recorded
in Genesis 1–11. One cannot disconnect the history in the Bible from understanding
spiritual and physical climate change. And one cannot disconnect the Bible from the
changes God says are coming—such as the final judgment of this earth by fire. But
it’s God, not man, who is in charge of this massive change to come.
Let God be true though every one were a liar. (Romans 3:4)
Climate Emergency or Hot Air?

If you scroll through the internet, more than likely you’ll see an article or two
about climate change. It’s the main topic of the day. Time magazine named teenage
climate activist Greta Thunberg the 2019 Person of the Year while Dictionary.com
deemed existential their Word of the Year. All this climate change chatter has
people fearful over what’s supposedly coming.
Many people experience eco-anxiety, defined by the American Psychological
Association as “a chronic fear of environmental doom.” In turn, eco-anxiety has
prompted the rise of eco-anxiety support groups called the Good Grief Network.
Further spurring on the panic, this past November, 11,258 scientists from around
the world added their names to a report that declares what they deem to be a
climate change emergency caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report, titled
“World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” was published in the journal
Bioscience. But things may not be as dire as they first appear.
William Ripple, professor of ecology at Oregon State University and colead author
of the study, proclaimed, “Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster
than many scientists expected.”
But if they’re really trying to prove a climate emergency, then shouldn’t the
majority of scientists who contributed to the report be qualified environmental
scientists? You would think so. But one researcher found that only 240—just 2%—of
the scientists who signed the report were considered experts in climate-related
fields.
In reality, only a small sampling of climate scientists believes we are facing
imminent doom. So why all the insistence on anxiety and panic?
In defense, Ripple explained, “What we wanted was a wide diversity of scientists in
many different disciplines because climate change has moved beyond a topic just for
climate scientists.” The study’s numbers were bolstered by experts in unrelated
fields such as paleontology, nutrition, computer science, and linguistics.
In reality, only a small sampling of climate scientists believe we are facing
imminent doom. Furthermore, thousands of scientists with climate-related degrees
have sent letters and signed petitions arguing against a climate crisis, further
emphasizing that the scientific community can’t reach a consensus on the issue.
So why all the insistence on anxiety and panic?
Secular scientists approach the climate debate from an unbiblical perspective,
believing that humans alone manage the rising temperatures. Certainly when we have
clear evidence that we are abusing creation, we should take actions to correct it.
But Christians know that God designed our magnificently complex climate and has
promised that the present earth will be inhabitable until he creates a new heaven
and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17).
The Unsolved Puzzle of Past Ice Ages

Secular scientists struggle to explain what caused the cyclical ice ages that many
believe happened in the past. But a new study has laid out how initial changes in
climate could have triggered the chain of events resulting in these supposed ice
ages. “We are pretty confident that the carbon balance between the atmosphere and
ocean must have changed,” Malte Jansen, coauthor of the study, said, “but we don’t
quite know how or why.”
Based on new evidence, researchers suggest that increasing sea ice in the Antarctic
might have altered the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the
ocean. More sea ice would have retained more carbon dioxide, keeping this
greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere and leading to even more cooling, in a sort of
feedback loop. But what started the process and what caused the supposed cycles is
still unclear. “The most plausible explanation is that there was some change in how
carbon was divided between the atmosphere and the ocean,” Jansen said. “There’s no
shortage of ideas about how this happens, but it’s not quite clear how they all fit
together.”
Creation scientists believe the effects of the flood triggered just one ice age.
The violent upheaval and drastic environmental changes caused by the worldwide
catastrophic event, including an ocean that covered the entire surface of the globe
for many months, certainly would have altered the exchange of carbon dioxide. These
secular researchers’ statements unwittingly confirm the biblical model.
Secular scientists don’t know the whole story, so they don’t have a mechanism for
an ice age. But Scripture offers the explanation that fills in their missing
pieces.
Caring Past Our Prejudice
Creature Care

Ugly, worthless, annoying—does our opinion of some creatures reflect the Creator’s
care or do we need an attitude adjustment?
Many people, including born-again Christians, are quite vitriolic against certain
members of our Maker’s menagerie. We easily say, “I love God’s creatures” while
thinking about giant pandas, box turtles, ladybugs, and koalas. But those nice
platitudes evaporate when we face unlovely creatures like centipedes or goblin
sharks, or perhaps troublesome critters your family has feuded with for
generations, such as cockroaches, termites, or moles.
But what does God think of his creation? Genesis 1:31 says, “And God saw everything
that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (emphasis added). You might say,
“That was before the fall. Now it’s all twisted by the curse, and certain critters
I’ve deemed more distorted are worthy of my complete loathing.”
Yes, the world is twisted, and the original created kinds have generated some
species with loathsome features and behaviors. But remember, Noah built the ark
after the fall. God told him to bring on board all kinds of terrestrial creatures
“to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3). This
means that the ancestors of the animals on our “hate list” were deliberately saved
from annihilation by God’s command.
In Genesis 1:28, God told Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God put us in
charge of the creatures. Admittedly, many undesirable plants and animals, such as
stinging nettle, venomous snakes, coyotes, or disease-transmitting insects (like
mosquitoes and tsetse flies) must be kept under control for man to exercise
dominion well. But our wrong attitudes should conform to a loving, wise Creator’s
perspective as we obey his command to manage his creation well—even the parts we
think are worthless or disgusting.
Detestable or Exquisitely Designed?
We often have an inexplicable prejudice against perfectly harmless aspects of
creation, such as a variety of nonvenomous snakes, innocuous weeds, and harmless
spiders. Their only “crime” is not conforming to our sense of beauty or utility. We
can fix this harmful perspective by remembering that God made them and charged us
with their care. Just because they aren’t as cute as a giant panda or as lovely as
an orchid doesn’t mean they forfeit their rightful place on earth.
When we look closely, past our prejudice, we see that God’s design is magnificent—
even if the creatures don’t measure up to our standard of beauty and utility.
In many cases, beauty can be seen in their function. For example, the naked mole-
rat with its furless skin, protruding teeth, and beady eyes is perfectly suited for
living underground in dark, low-oxygen conditions, chiseling tunnels with its
teeth. Likewise, the blobfish, a species which often finds itself nominated as the
ugliest animal, thrives in the pressure of its deep-sea habitat. Its gelatinous
body allows the blobfish to float above the seafloor, reducing the energy usually
needed for swimming.
When we look closely, past our prejudice, we see that God’s design is magnificent—
even if the creatures don’t measure up to our standard of beauty and utility.
Worthless or Purposeful?
Sometimes the species we think are worthless are important to the health of an
ecosystem. For example, many people dislike mosquitoes for obvious reasons: They
annoy us on summer evenings, and in many parts of the world, they spread deadly
diseases. But mosquitoes are an important food source for insectivores like
dragonflies, fish, bats, and many birds. The nectar-feeding male mosquitoes also
pollinate flowers.
Mosquito

Though mosquitoes transmit diseases to millions of people each year, these pesky
insects also pollinate flowers and are a food source for other animals.
And what about thistles? These plants can mar a well-manicured lawn, but they are
also a source of nectar from which bees make delicious honey.
Far from worthless, most creatures and plants offer some benefit to creation at
large—including to humans. Before the 1850s, most people would have thought rats
and mice were disgusting vermin only to be caught and destroyed—and rightly so,
since they spread disease and ate crops. Today, however, these rodents are
invaluable to biomedical research. Likewise, thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) in
the wild is considered an annual weed. But because of its quick life cycle and
small genome, it has become a popular and valuable model organism in plant biology
and molecular genetics.
We must watch for possible assets in plants and animals that we currently
disregard. We don’t know what hidden treasures might lie in some seemingly useless
or unpopular organisms. Regarding biodiversity conservation, ecologist Aldo Leopold
wrote in his book A Sand County Almanac, “Who but a fool would discard seemingly
useless parts. To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent
tinkering.”
Annihilate or Manage?
Rather than trying to annihilate a troublesome species, managing creation means
finding ways to reduce the negative effects of the fall while still maintaining
God’s biodiversity. For example, rather than driving mosquitoes to extinction,
scientists are working on genetically modifying the insects to inhibit their
ability to transmit malaria.
In addition to researching ways to control the negative effects of creation, we can
also manage creatures by keeping them in their proper ecosystems. Whether by human
intent or carelessness, certain species often wind up in the wrong place. These are
known as invasive species. For example, the Asian giant hornet was recently
introduced into northwest Washington State and Canada. Honeybee (Apis mellifera)
colonies are defenseless against this marauder, which decapitates the bees by the
dozens. But in the hornet’s natural habitat, Japanese honeybees (Apis cerana
japonica) know how to deal with this bully. Like a rugby scrum, they mob the
hornet. Then they vibrate their wing muscles until they generate enough heat to
cook the attacker.
When invasive plants or animals get established in a new place, they can cause
enormous, expensive problems because they are free from the environment that
normally held them in check. If these so-called pests are kept in their proper
place, they usually aren’t much of a problem. They don’t need to be exterminated
off the face of the earth—they just need to be managed.
Reappraising Their Value
If a species’ existence hinges on our opinion, the cute and furry species are safe.
But it’s another story if the critter is a venomous snake, like the Russell’s
viper, responsible for thousands of deaths each year, or insatiable slugs that eat
our garden vegetables. These creatures are hard-pressed to justify their existence
to the general public. (Personally, I think snakes are amazing. But my opinion
doesn’t matter.)
Even though there are many aesthetic or pragmatic reasons for finding the value in
creatures, the foundational reason to respect animal or plant species should not be
attached to their ability to win a popularity contest. We might not think certain
animals or plants are particularly useful, pretty, or interesting, but we do know
they have innate value simply because they are part of God’s creation and he gave
them to us to manage.
The Dominion Mandate Still Stands
Remember, even though creatures were cursed following the fall, the dominion
mandate still stands. We are to wisely and kindly rule over creation. That starts
by adjusting our attitudes toward the creatures in our care. Plants and animals
shouldn’t have to justify their existence to us by meeting our standard for beauty
or having some obvious benefit to bestow on society or their ecosystem, though they
probably do. Their intrinsic value is not dependent on our attitude toward them.
Their innate value is established in the words of Genesis: “He saw all that he
made, and it was very good. . . . God said to them, . . . ‘Have dominion over . . .
every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Because these are God’s creatures and
because he gave them into our charge, it’s up to us to manage them well—including
keeping pests in check as appropriate—to the glory of our Creator.
Adapted from excerpts in A Different Shade of Green: A Biblical Approach to
Environmentalism and the Dominion Mandate by Gordon Wilson (Moscow, ID: Canon
Press, 2019).
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Senior Fellow of Natural History at New Saint Andrews College,
earned an MS in entomology from the University of Idaho and a PhD from George Mason
University in environmental science and public policy. He is the narrator of the
nature documentary series The Riot and the Dance and the author of a biology
textbook of the same name.
Should We Abandon Some Species to Extinction?
As God’s creatures disappear, Christians have the opportunity to model the
Creator’s spirit of wise conservation.
Benjamin lay in Tasmania’s Beaumaris Zoo, frozen to death after being left outside
his enclosure on a cold night in 1936. Benjamin was a thylacine, or Tasmanian
tiger, the largest living marsupial (pouched) carnivore of his day. He had a body
as big as a medium-size dog, striking black stripes against yellow-brown fur, and a
stiff kangaroo-like tail. When threatened, he could open his jaws a whopping 80º in
a behavior called a threat-yawn.
But you’ll probably never get the chance to see this unique creature in real life.
The same year Benjamin died as the last captive thylacine, Tasmanian tigers were
also declared extinct in the wild, hunted to annihilation by people who had
perceived the animals as an unmanageable threat to their livestock.1

Thylacines are just the tip of the extinction iceberg. Over the last 400 years,
we’ve lost the golden toad, passenger pigeon, Caribbean monk seal, dodo, western
black rhinoceros, Javan tiger, and many others. Currently, several endangered
species could go extinct in the next few years, including Amur leopards and tigers,
orangutans, Sumatran and Asian elephants, blue whales, bluefin tuna, and hawksbill
turtles.
Secular environmentalists are quite concerned about disappearing species. But how
are Christians to respond to the loss of these creatures?
God didn’t intend this dominion to include ravaging the land, being careless with
the environment, or destroying creatures on a whim.
When God gave his image bearers the responsibility of ruling the organisms in
creation, he defined one of our purposes on earth. With careful attention to the
Hebrew text and context as well as to the language and culture of the time, the
words of God in Genesis state that God made man in his image and likeness. It is
clear in God’s Word that image and likeness refer to sonship with our Father and
servant kingship with creation. Servant kingship includes ruling the fish of the
sea, birds of the air, and every living creature that moves on the ground (Genesis
1:27–28). God didn’t intend this dominion to include ravaging the land, being
careless with the environment, or destroying creatures on a whim.
God set an example for us as servant rulers by commanding Noah to take at least two
of every air-breathing, vertebrate animal kind on the ark. He saved these creatures
so they could multiply and refill the earth after the devastation of the flood.
When Christians live out God’s command by caring for fading diversity, they have a
chance to demonstrate the Creator’s intent for conservation.
Threatened Species
Threatened Species

Threatened Species Key

Art by Malachi Studio

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that over
14,000 animal species are either critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.
The opening pages feature only a few of the magnificent creatures that one day
might be extinct.
1) Saiga antelope 2) Indian pangolin 3) Honduran red-banded earth snake 4) Elkhorn
coral 5) North Atlantic right whale 6) Vaquita 7) Gooty sapphire ornamental
tarantula 8) Smalltooth sawfish 9) Red panda 10) Western gorilla 11) Addax 12)
Common skate 13) ʻAkohekohe 14) Whale shark 15) Helmeted hornbill 16) Okapi 17)
Proboscis monkey 18) Red-crowned crane 19) African wild dog 20) Opisthoteuthis
chathamensis 21) Black rhinoceros 22) Chinese puffer fish 23) Iberian lynx 24)
Antiguan racer 25) Mediterranean monk seal 26) New Zealand sea lion 27) Eskimo
curlew
Why Should We Save Species?
When a species wanes or goes extinct, its ecosystem may fall out of balance and
become unstable because each creature contributes to the overall health of an
ecosystem.
When a species wanes or goes extinct, its ecosystem may fall out of balance and
become unstable because each creature contributes to the overall health of an
ecosystem. An unhealthy ecosystem isn’t self-contained—it functions within a larger
context, inevitably affecting humans in some way. For example, hemlock trees on the
east coast of the USA are being killed by an invasive insect known as the hemlock
woolly adelgid. In certain places in the South, skeleton trees tell a story of mass
death in large areas of the forest, especially near streams. With their shade,
these trees cooled the streams, allowing more oxygen to be dissolved in the water
and creating optimum habitat for stream insects. More insects resulted in healthy
trout populations, fueling recreational fishing and breathing economic life into
the tourist industry. The death of hemlock trees functions within a larger
ecosystem. We are wise to preserve diversity since species often provide soundness
to an ecosystem.
We should also preserve species for the benefits we might derive from them. God’s
design in nature inspires new technologies (biomimicry) that make our lives safer
and our products more efficient. For example, scientists looked at whale fin design
to create a better model for airplane propellers, and a recent study of mussel
adhesion could help create a product to clean up oil spills.
Today many prescribed medicines come from plants or other natural products, and
scientists are constantly turning to nature for its health benefits. For example,
turmeric root has anti-inflammatory properties while evening primrose can improve
the quality of life for those suffering from multiple sclerosis and polycystic
ovary syndrome. These are just two of thousands of plants that researchers are
actively investigating for beneficial properties. It’s up to us who bear God’s
image to steward the environments in which these plant species grow.
Research also suggests that enjoying and immersing in beautiful and diverse
environments bring emotional and spiritual well-being by reducing anxiety, lowering
blood pressure, and calming our minds in a fast-paced, chaotic world.
Beyond considering the practical reasons for preserving species from extinction, we
must remember that creation exists, in part, to declare God’s glory and remind us
to worship him. His invisible attributes are manifested in the physical creation
(Romans 1:20). His infinite wisdom and artistry are also revealed in the stunning
engineering, aesthetics, and symmetry of all life. With every extinct species, we
lose valuable insight into our heavenly Father’s creative mind, characteristics,
and care for his creatures.
The species we see today diversified from the original kinds God called “very good”
in Eden. However, even in the fallen world, we do not need to justify or market the
worth of a species based on its ecological, sociological, utilitarian, spiritual,
and aesthetic characteristics.
These creatures are intrinsically valuable because they are his. None are merely
expendable or disposable. Of course, we must wisely manage disease organisms,
dangerous animals, urban pests, and invasive plants that wreak havoc on people,
their livelihoods, and other creatures. Examples of these include fungal wood rots
and defoliating predators of forest and orchard trees, invasive pythons of the
Florida everglades, and the kudzu vines inundating the southeastern United States.
However, we should strive to avoid waging a war to extinction.
Keeping the Keystones
Keystone species are organisms that play vital roles in supporting and maintaining
the structure and biodiversity of their ecosystems. Their loss would negatively
affect their entire ecological community.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the global authority
on the status of species throughout the world and develops solutions to save them.
Types of Keystone Species
* Predator—controls the population and range of other animals
* Plant—provides food or shelter for other species
* Mutualist—interacts with other species in a vitally reciprocal way
* Engineer—creates, modifies, or maintains the landscape
Sea Otter

Art by Malachi Studio

Sea Otter
(Enhydra lutris)
Predator Keystone
* Lives in the Pacific coastal waters of northwestern North America
* Sea otters hunt in kelp forests, eating sea urchins and other marine animals. As
a habitat for various marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates, kelp forests keep
biodiversity healthy, provide food for a variety of birds, and dissipate the
erosion from ocean waves on nearby coastlines.
* Without sea otters, sea urchin populations would skyrocket and destroy the kelp
forest, collapsing the rest of the community. Nearby coastlines would possibly
erode, potentially affecting human structures and the tourism industry.
Hemlock

Art by Malachi Studio

Eastern Hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis)
Plant Keystone
* Grows in eastern North America
* These trees provide shade that cools surrounding streams, allowing more oxygen to
be dissolved in the water and creating an optimum habitat for aquatic life,
especially insects. More insects promote healthy trout populations, fueling
recreational fishing, which is important for tourism industries.
* Without shade trees, water temperatures increase, decreasing dissolved oxygen and
threatening the native species that thrive in cold water.
Southern Cassowary

Art by Malachi Studio

Southern Cassowary
(Casuarias casuarias johnsonii)
Mutualist Keystone
* Lives in the rainforests, grasslands, and wetlands of northeastern Australia, New
Guinea, and the Seram and Aru Islands of Indonesia
* Cassowaries are important seed dispersers. These birds consume as many as 238
different plants, including some toxic fruits that other animals can’t eat. Their
gentle digestive system allows the seeds to survive and be distributed over large
areas, maintaining local biodiversity.
* Without cassowaries, plants would be at risk of local extinction. The absence of
these plants would alter the diversity of the surrounding ecological structure.
African Bush Elephant

Art by Malachi Studio

African Bush Elephant
(Loxodonta africana)
Engineer Keystone
* Lives in the forests, savannahs, and wetlands of sub-Saharan Africa
* Elephants push down trees to eat their foliage, helping to minimize forest fire
outbreaks. This also increases the size of savannas, which house a diversity of
herbivores (such as zebra and antelope), carnivores (such as lions and leopards),
and scavengers (such as hyenas and vultures). Elephants also dig holes in dry
riverbeds for water storage in the rainy season and disperse seeds of the baobab
tree (Adansonia sp.), whose fruit is food for both animals and people.
* Without elephants, baobab dispersal would decrease and forests would increase,
reducing the biodiversity of the savannas and potentially causing this vital biome
to collapse.
The Problems with Conservation
Secular environmentalists are usually Darwinian evolutionists, meaning that they
value humans and animals equally since they believe we descended from the same
ancestor. By rejecting the reality of an all-powerful God, they believe that humans
alone are in full control of the world’s existence.
As Christians, we can take a more balanced approach, understanding that though we
have a responsibility to tend the earth, we are not the final power in charge of
it. We also understand that because of the curse, species have risen and gone
extinct throughout history. Catastrophic processes caused some extinctions, and
many others have disappeared by our own unwise and uncaring attitudes and actions.
Still, even knowing that death is unavoidable in a fallen world, as an ecologist, I
feel a sadness when I reflect on how much biodiversity we have lost over the
centuries. We must consider the real challenges of protecting and caring for God’s
creatures.
Environmental Triage
Conserving species costs an exorbitant amount of time and money. One study
estimated that it would take $58 billion annually to reduce the extinction risk and
maintain the protected areas for all 26,000 endangered species.2
Despite the time and money expended to save them, many species continue declining
in numbers. For example, because of habitat destruction, oil and gas exploration,
and increased predation, the population of Canada’s woodland caribou continues to
decrease even with millions of dollars and countless work hours spent on their
recovery.
Though most conservationists refuse to abandon any species to extinction, a few
wonder if we should let some species disappear so that we can focus finances and
energy on other organisms that have a better chance of being saved. Some
conservationists propose triaging each species to determine the feasibility of
restoring them back to healthy populations. Just as a medic prioritizes injuries in
a mass disaster based on severity of injury and reasonable chance of survival, so
conservation biologists could use triage to identify and focus on threatened
species with a reasonable chance of comeback.
Conservationists might also triage by considering keystone species. More than other
creatures, keystone species have more impact on maintaining their ecosystem. For
example, the sea otter’s presence in its environment produces a stable and healthy
community for a score of other organisms. Sea otters hunt in kelp forests, eating
sea urchins and other marine animals. Kelp forests are an important habitat for a
variety of fish and marine invertebrates that result in not only keeping
biodiversity healthy but also helping dissipate the power of ocean waves to protect
nearby coastlines. Historically, when otters were removed through hunting, sea
urchin populations skyrocketed and destroyed the kelp forests, causing these
diverse communities to collapse.
Managing keystone species and the health of their habitats will automatically bring
positive results for many other species, allowing us to be good stewards of time
and resources.
A God of Conservation
Our rebellion against God broke our relationship with him, with one another, and
with the creation. In response to our sin, he cursed this world. However, even in a
fallen world, God’s statements about our purpose and his creatures have not
changed. But perhaps our sometimes careless attitude should.
I’ve heard fellow believers respond to the issue of extinction in unsettling ways:
“Maybe it’s just God’s will for these species to go extinct. After all, animals
aren’t as valuable as humans because they aren’t made in God’s image,” and “God’s
going to destroy the planet when he recreates the new heavens and earth anyway,”
and “Christians need to reach souls and not hug trees with leftist environmental
wackos.” But the dismissive spirit of these responses seems counter to what we know
about the Creator’s redemptive plans.
The triune God spared no effort to restore the relationship with his image bearers.
In fact, the Creator became flesh and dwelt among his creation when God the Son,
Jesus, walked the earth, taking the punishment for our sin and offering those who
believe in him a new beginning with God.
The Holy Spirit indwells believers, enabling us to mirror God’s perspective even in
the area of caring for and conserving species. In his book Pollution and the Death
of Man, Francis Schaeffer put it this way: “If I love the Lover, I love what the
Lover has made.” The more we care about the things that matter to Jesus, the more
we will be involved in their care. What if we more intentionally trained our
children to enjoy creation and to be lifelong learners of our world and its
creatures?
What if Christians entered fields such as biology and environmental sciences to
work in conservation? What if we recognize our identity as sons and daughters of
the King and exercise our ordained servant dominion over creation? Our concern for
creatures on the brink of extinction could serve as a way to tell unbelieving
environmental biologists the good news of our Creator and Savior who gave himself
to snatch us from the brink of eternal death.
Mammoth

Art by Malachi Studio

Can We Bring Back Species from Extinction?
In recent decades, some scientists have been captivated by the thought of bringing
species back from extinction (de-extinction). By sequencing the genomes of current
species and inserting the DNA from genetic samples of extinct species preserved in
museums and zoos, they hope that quaggas (a species of zebra), woolly mammoths, and
passenger pigeons might roam this world once more.
But de-extinction programs are expensive, time consuming, rigorous, and, so far,
have resurrected no species.
Even if we can someday bring a creature back from extinction, perhaps a better
question is “Should we?” Creatures brought back from extinction would live in a
world much different from the one in which they formerly thrived (Jurassic Park,
anyone?) Habitats have changed, and other organisms they interacted with in
symbiotic (mutually helpful) relationships may not still exist. These de-extinct
creatures could disrupt the dynamic of other habitats by becoming pests or carriers
of disease. If the habitat for a species is no longer viable, bringing an extinct
species back would be a waste of time and effort.
God calls us to be good stewards of the earth—that includes wisely allocating our
resources. Rather than bringing back species that might harm our current
ecosystems, we should focus our energies and resources on things that will benefit
humans and ecosystems now and in the future. We can start by conserving endangered
creatures that have a fighting chance and by maintaining ecosystems on which large
populations of species depend.
Tom Hennigan is associate professor of biology at Truett-McConnell University,
where he teaches organism biology and ecology. He is coauthor of the newest edition
of the Wonders of Creation series, The Ecology Book.

A Deeper Shade of Green

Creation Care
The green movement is dominated by secular environmentalists. But when it comes to
creation care, Christians have a deeper calling.
You can hardly visit a news website these days without reading about melting polar
icecaps, an animal species threatened by deforestation, massive patches of garbage
in the ocean, or any number of ways that global warming is seen to be threatening
life as we know it. With their zealous outcries, secular environmentalists seem to
care a great deal for the planet—even to the point of idolatry. But because they
embrace Darwinism (naturalistic evolution) and reject the Genesis creation account,
their sincere motivations to protect creation for us and future generations will
always lead to misguided and sometimes extremely damaging environmental policies.
Genesis 1:31 says, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was
very good.” That was before Adam and Eve rebelled against God, marring his good
creation with death and suffering, violence and sin. Thankfully, unlike an artist
who might reject a ruined drawing, God didn’t abandon his creation. In fact, even
when God sent the worldwide flood to destroy the earth, he commanded Noah to build
an ark to “keep [the animals’] offspring alive on the face of all the earth”
(Genesis 7:3). Think about that. Noah’s ark was the biggest biodiversity
conservation act in world history.
Scripture encourages humans to treat animals humanely (Proverbs 12:10), reveals
that God clothes the lilies of the field (Matthew 6:28–30), and tells us that God
provides for wildlife (food, water, and habitat) and for us through the bounty of
his living creation (Psalm 104). Clearly, he cares for creation, and he charged us
to tend it.
Because the area of conservation has been so dominated by secular
environmentalists, some Christians entirely reject the notion of caring for nature.
But rather than abandoning the conservation issue to agenda-driven hype, Christians
should protect and conserve God’s creation by exercising wise dominion in a
distinctly biblical way.
Getting Our Biblical Bearings
Before we can act biblically, we need to think biblically. Genesis 1:28 says, “And
God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and
have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over
every living thing that moves on the earth’” (emphasis added). Bible scholars call
this verse the dominion mandate. Dominion (the Hebrew word radah) is a strong word.
It means “to rule, dominate, subjugate.” If we closely look at Genesis 1:28, we see
that dominion is essentially the management of both wild and domesticated animals
worldwide. Although ultimately God owns the universe (1 Corinthians 10:26), in
another sense, he bequeathed the earth and all of its creatures to us to rule over
as subordinate owners, or subregents.
Of course, human sinfulness can exercise dominion in all kinds of horrid ways.
Righteous rulers use their sovereign authority to do good things; evil rulers use
their sovereign authority to do evil things. Because the latter has been far more
common, many secular environmentalists balk at the word dominion, misinterpreting
this verse as God handing us the world as a blank check to use and abuse. But that
definition couldn’t be any further from what God intended. The problem isn’t
dominion; the problem is how sinful people wield dominion.
Yes, dominion is a strong word. Rather than soften the word, we should look at all
of Scripture to see what righteous dominion looks like so we can exercise it with
its full strength and full goodness. To see a picture of righteous dominion in a
smaller context, let’s look at how Paul describes the marriage covenant in
Ephesians 5. First, he teaches that Christ is the head of the church—dominion in
the fullest sense.
Paul then goes on to say that a husband is the head of the wife in the same way. If
we have a negative view of headship or dominion, we probably cringe at this
passage. But how is a husband told to exercise his marital headship? The way Christ
loved the church. Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. “He who
loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes
and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (Ephesians 5:28). A husband is to
imitate this loving, sacrificial example in caring for his wife.
In the same loving headship described in Ephesians 5, our rule over creation should
not be oppressive and exploitive. Creatures in our charge should thrive, flourish,
and fill the earth. Of course, we can use nature for its resources, as long as we
do so humanely and responsibly. We hunt animals and raise livestock for food. We
make countless items with wood, cotton, flax, and leather. We derive many medicines
from plants and animals. We breathe oxygen produced by plants and algae. Everything
we eat and most of what we wear comes from plants and animals or their products.
But living things don’t exist solely for our practical needs. The aesthetic beauty
of creation is of incalculable value. Consider how many of us enjoy outdoor
recreation such as hiking, boating, rock climbing, and camping. Activities that
allow us to bask in the beauty of creation revive our spirit in ways our cities and
other urban locations don’t.
Our overall mission is to exercise wise dominion over the living creation. We are
to maintain a healthy balance in the created diversity, providing good habitats if
creatures are wild (Job 40–41; Psalm 104) and good care if they aren’t (Proverbs
12:10). We should control plants and animals that are hazardous to our herds,
health, and happiness (Genesis 3:18; 1 Samuel 17:34–35). And we should delight in
and praise God for our wonderful earth, even in its fallen state.
The Real Problem
The root of all environmental problems is sin. Greed and abuse have often forced
creatures to extinction. Disregard for our neighbors results in litter as well as
air and water pollution. Lack of care, deliberately or inadvertently, causes
animals to suffer, and overuse depletes the land of its nutrients and resources.
References throughout the Old Testament mention the effects of sin on the
environment. Hosea 4:1–3 is one particularly clear example:
Hear the word of the LORD, O children of Israel, for the LORD has a controversy
with the inhabitants of the land.
There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land;
there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all
bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.
Therefore the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of
the field and the birds of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea are taken
away.
When seeking to address a real or perceived environmental problem, secular
environmentalists factor God’s Word out of the equation. As evolutionists, they
believe that humans are evolved like every other species, yet they think we are
somehow responsible for taking care of all other life forms on our planet.
Curiously, they don’t think chimps or dolphins or any other species are responsible
for taking care of the planet. Innately, secular environmentalists understand our
responsibility to exercise dominion. Unfortunately, they don’t acknowledge that it
is a God-given command; therefore, they practice dominion according to the whims
and fashions of humankind, not according to God’s Word—and that always causes
problems.
The Real Solution
Because they reject the truths found in God’s Word, most secular environmentalists
want to solve problems through political muscle power or coercion. Whether the
issue is pollution, habitat destruction, extinction, overpopulation, or climate
change, they distort or exaggerate the problem incessantly through liberal news
outlets, secular websites, zoos, museums, and nature documentaries, while trying to
impose new environmental legislation. Coercion through political force involves law
enforcement, requires significant funds, and creates unreasonable restrictions.
Thus, these solutions are often not very effective because, though they might force
people to comply, they fail to make a lasting change in people’s hearts, which is
the only way to change concern for and behavior toward the environment. But as
Christians who love God and his creatures, we must acknowledge and address the root
of the problem—sin.
We must acknowledge and address the root of the problem—sin.
The biblical solution to the problem of sin is very different from the solution
that environmentalists propose. It isn’t political activism or reducing your carbon
footprint or voting for a green candidate. It isn’t having 1.7 kids or buying fair
trade. The solution is the gospel, being reconciled to the Father by repenting of
our sin and believing in his Son, Jesus Christ, who died for us (Mark 1:15). When
we’re reconciled to God, other broken relationships around us begin to heal. In his
book Pollution and the Death of Man, Francis Schaeffer called these broken
relationships “separations.” The major separation restored by the gospel is between
God and man. But the gospel also repairs the relationship between man and nature,
allowing us to exercise benevolent and wise dominion according to God’s Word.
Healing the brokenness doesn’t happen overnight. Like sanctification, it’s a
process. When we are reconciled to God, his Spirit indwells us and empowers us to
obey his commands. We begin to love and care more for his creation. We begin
exercising dominion righteously and wisely. We begin seeking truth, beauty, and
goodness in how we use our resources and run our homes, our businesses, and our
factories. We seek to love our neighbors by keeping the air and water clean. We
desire to maintain the diversity that God created.
The gospel isn’t limited to regenerating hearts—its work is much more
comprehensive. It is meant to redeem creation by redeeming the hearts of men and
women who were not only made in the image of God but were given dominion on day six
of creation. Though creation groans because of our sin, the transforming power of
the gospel regenerates our hearts so we can care for our Father’s world until the
earth is liberated from its bondage to decay through the hope of the gospel: the
second coming of Jesus Christ.
Environmental Issues Are Complex
When looking at proposed solutions to environmental problems, we must carefully
evaluate every angle. Even a seemingly straightforward option brings challenges and
drawbacks that are not always readily presented by those seeking to push an agenda.
For example, environmentalists sometimes present alternative energy such as wind
and solar farms as the clean answer to other more conventional forms of energy,
such as burning coal or fossil fuels.
It’s true that, once operational, wind energy cuts emissions by running on a 100%
renewable resource. But is that the whole story?
Wind turbines and solar panels, along with the batteries required to store their
energy, have a high monetary and environmental production cost. These upfront costs
may balance out over time with low-operating costs, but for now, the power that
wind and solar farms provide is more expensive than traditional power. This cost
demands government subsidies that are likely greater than the reduced energy cost
of the wind and solar farms. Additionally, wind and solar farms require vast areas
of land that can change the natural aesthetics of a landscape and interfere with
wildlife habitats. Bats and birds are often killed by the rotating blades or the
concentrated beams of light, and the turbine vibrations produce sound pollution.
With complex environmental topics such as alternative energy, we must carefully
consider the impact on our neighbors and God’s creation as we make wise dominion
decisions.
For more on this topic, read A Different Shade of Green by Gordon Wilson (Moscow,
ID: Canon Press, 2019).
Dr. Gordon Wilson, senior fellow of natural history at New Saint Andrews College,
earned an MS in entomology from the University of Idaho and a PhD from George Mason
University in environmental science and public policy. He is the narrator of the
nature documentary series The Riot and the Dance and is the author of a biology
textbook of the same name.

Plastics in Paradise
Creation Care
by Mike Wild on October 1, 2020
Featured in Answers Magazine

Plastic pollution has invaded even the most remote places. Should Christians be
concerned?
In March of 2018, I was exploring deep in the remote Asian waters of the Pacific
Ocean. I cautiously piloted the Cenderawasih, my 65-foot (20-m) traditional
catamaran, through the western channel of the remote Wayag Islands. Only a few
small settlements with rusty tin roofs populated the craggy shores of Waigeo. Miles
and miles of deep blue Pacific Ocean separated us from the next nearest humans.
My hand on the massive iron-wood tiller, I steered my boat deeper into the narrow
entrance. Karst islets on either side jutted up from the water like the back plates
of some massive Leviathan. Finally, in the protected heart of the islands, I found
a quiet lagoon fringed to the south by a stretch of fine, snowy white sand. Here I
threw an anchor off the bow, backed the craft to the beach, and tied a stern line
to a pine tree on the shore. As I killed the engine, I took in the breathtaking
primitive scenery.
But then I saw them—unnatural invaders boondocking in this peaceful paradise.
Plastic wrappers, old nylon rope, Styrofoam, discarded sandals, and a load of other
rubbish had been pulled into the bowels of Wayag from the strong currents that zip
back and forth each day. The trash could not escape the quiet lagoons. Some of the
factory-made flotsam became hopelessly stranded on the beaches while some dumbly
ebbed and flowed, bunched together forming multicolored colonies on the water’s
foamy surface.
Sadly, in the years that we spent in this part of the world, I witnessed this scene
over and over while exploring remote and uninhabited islands: God’s amazing watery
creation sullied by man’s careless management.
We’ve seen the pictures of entangled dolphins and birds, of sick turtles, manta
rays, and whale sharks. Plastic pollution has become an undeniable global menace in
the world’s oceans, impacting not only our scenery but also our food sources and
potentially even our own health and our children’s futures.
We know the Creator loves his creation. The Psalms are full of verses showing how
God cares and provides for the things he made (see Psalm 104). To tell his
disciples how their heavenly Father cares for them, Jesus revealed that God knows
what happens to each tiny sparrow. From Job 38:16, I am led to envision the Lord
walking in the recesses of the deep sea, enjoying the wonderful things he made. But
we also see from Scripture and from personal experience that all of creation is
groaning while it waits for its deliverance from decay (Romans 8:20–22). Because of
Adam’s disobedience long ago, the world was cursed and plunged into corruption.
As followers of Christ, we join creation in waiting for the Lord to make all things
new. While still “on our watch,” we know that we should strive to be good stewards
of the earth that God has entrusted to us. But in today’s climate of radical,
corrupt environmentalism mixed with the sensational atmosphere of social media and
fake news, Christians can be confused about what is fact and what is exaggeration
when it comes to reports of plastic in the oceans. In obedience to our Creator’s
command, we must look at the information carefully to understand what impact
plastic waste is having on these watery reservoirs that comprise 70% of the earth’s
surface.
The Positives of Plastic
Since its creation in 1907, plastic has been improved and modified in nearly
countless ways to assist and enhance our lives, benefitting humanity and creation
as a whole. Plastic is lightweight, strong, and durable. With it, we make an ever-
increasing number of products, from airbags and bike helmets to electronic
components and artistic tools. Plastic helps us build bridges, construct houses,
and save lives in emergency rooms. It makes life safer and more convenient while
also benefitting the environment. With it, we produce lighter vehicles and
machines, making them more fuel efficient with less emissions. And by creating
synthetic goods to replace natural wood and bone, we avoid depleting our forest
resources, and we no longer legally hunt elephants and rhinos for their ivory.
Arguably every person in the world uses plastic daily. Even remote tribes living in
the isolated interior mountain region of Papua, Indonesia, own plastic items that
have been traded from distant towns, and the fierce islanders living in the
forbidden Andaman Islands, though having no contact with the outside world, most
certainly use plastic debris that washes along their shores. Plastic has truly
become one of the world’s most versatile commodities, but this product that helps
us in so many ways is also harming the Creator’s beautiful world.
Our Part in the Plastic Problem
A recent article on the Coastal Care website says, “Our tremendous attraction to
plastic, coupled with an undeniable behavioral propensity of increasingly over-
consuming, discarding, littering and thus polluting, has become a combination of
lethal nature.”1 But just how lethal has it become? According to the journal
Science Advances, over 8 billion tons of plastic have been produced since 1950.
More than half of that went to landfills, and only about 9% was recycled. Experts
suppose that much of that unrecycled plastic now pollutes the ocean.2
Having lived in Asia Pacific for the last 17 years, I have seen people who have no
problem polluting the earth. In fact, some people see the ocean as their trash can.
In this context, I have witnessed how quickly plastic waste can destroy habitats
and wildlife while making living conditions wretched for people. Once I observed a
man come down to the ocean’s edge with a wheelbarrow full of trash and dump it
right at the waterline, adding to the rancid hill of trash already wet and
glistening in the morning sun. I have been on a boat, miles out from beautiful
seaports and spotted innumerable plastic wrappers and rice bags floating serenely
three feet under the crystal blue surface. I have seen small rivers clogged with a
cover of plastic trash one- or two-feet thick. I have observed sea anemones and
coral covered with plastic bags. And I have witnessed children rooting through
piles of plastic and filth, looking for some treasure to carry to their house
across the street.
The United States has a pollution problem as well. Research from a study in 2010
states, “With the [world’s] largest population, China produced the largest quantity
of plastic, at nearly 60 million tons. This was followed by the United States at 38
million [tons].”3 And much of that plastic ends up as waste. I can remember riding
down a Florida highway in the 1980s and seeing garbage along the roadsides from
people throwing their trash out the windows. And once as a teenager I rescued a
grumpy gar fish from a plastic six-pack holder cinched around his long body.
Thankfully, today there are stricter rules about dumping trash on the highway, and
plastic six-pack holders aren’t as common. Even so, walking along a shore or
sidewalk today, I still see a lot of manmade debris. But what if we are not litter
bugs? Is it possible for our fast food wrapper or plastic straw to end up in the
sea? Definitely!
Have you ever thrown your wrapper or plastic bottle toward a trash can with good
intentions but missed the mark and left it lying on the ground? Some plastic blows
out of trash cans, garbage trucks, and landfills, ending up in gutters, streams,
and sometimes eventually the ocean. Other plastic in the oceans comes from
commercial fisherman and plastic trash that is purposely dumped.
Breaking Down the Plasic Problem
The millions of tons of plastic pollution that ends up in the ocean every year is
like a suffocating plague affecting the smallest to largest organisms on earth.
Plastic in the oceans break down due to sun exposure and water motion. Some
plastics take an estimated 500 to 1,000 years to break down. Others break down much
faster. While this might seem better because we don’t see as much of it on the
surface, plastic is actually having quite devastating effects on marine life. Large
pieces of plastic eventually break down into smaller pieces of plastic called
microplastics, which are ingested by many species of invertebrates, fish, marine
mammals, marine reptiles, and birds. On remote Midway Island, halfway between Asia
and North America, albatross are eating as much plastic as they are fish and are
dying in droves. When filmmakers recorded their decomposed bodies on the beach, all
that was left were feathers and bones encasing a pile of colored plastic.4
Even the world’s deepest ocean trench is not left unsullied. At over 36,000 feet,
the Mariana Trench is littered with plastic trash. After finding plastic microfiber
in the gut of a new species of amphipod from the trench, scientists named the
creature Eurythenes plasticus.
The scientists who made this discovery said, “While plastic contamination in
animals is not a new occurrence, unfortunately, the presence of plastic pollutants
in a newly discovered species, in an area of our planet that we have yet to fully
explore, makes this news particularly unsettling.”5
And it’s not only marine animals that ingest plastic. As plastic pollution in the
ocean passes through the food chain, toxins get into the flesh and edible parts of
seafood, which eventually ends up on our dinner plates. Scientists are still
investigating the full effects of humans consuming plastic, but studies already
suggest that plastic causes cancer, hormonal imbalance, and birth defects.
Microplastics: An Unseen Concern
Microplastics

Many plastics never completely degrade but continue breaking down into smaller
pieces. The waves, wind, and sun on the open sea break plastics into tiny particles
called microplastics. Some of these microplastics are less than one-fifth of an
inch across, such as those shown here on a penny. Trillions of these microplastics
litter the world’s beaches and waterways, injuring wildlife and contaminating the
food chain. Many of them come from the microbeads used in hygiene products such as
toothpaste and shower gel.
Minding the Mandate
If you are like me, when you read statistics talking about toxic seafood and
billions of tons of trash, your eyes blur over. Feeling helpless to do anything
about it, you go on living your life, trying not to feel guilty about eating with
single-use utensils or bringing your groceries home in plastic bags.
But how should Christians approach this topic? Unfortunately, many of us view the
plastic waste problem as the propaganda of liberal activists who value nature and
animal rights over human lives. Some people seem to think, “Who really cares about
birds that no one sees or a minuscule creature that lives at the bottom of a pitch-
black ocean trench?” Others feel compassion for animals that needlessly suffer and
die, but they don’t know what to do about it.
Other Christians think, “This world will be destroyed one day anyway, so why should
we care to clean up the place?” But such attitudes disregard the very first mandate
God issued in Genesis 1.
Of all who walk the earth, the followers of Christ should be leading in example
when it comes to stewarding our God-given home.
We read in Genesis 1:26 that God made us to rule over the fish of the sea, birds of
the air, and the livestock; over all the earth; and over all the creatures that
move along the ground. This mandate did not come from radical leftist
environmentalists with a secular agenda. It came straight from the Creator to us—
humans—the pinnacle of all he made. His command should be taken most seriously by
those who claim the authority of Scripture and the Christian worldview. Of all who
walk the earth, the followers of Christ should be leading in example when it comes
to stewarding our God-given home.
Did you know that the ocean produces over 50% of the world’s oxygen and regulates
the earth’s climate? The ocean gives us not only seafood but also many ingredients
found in everyday foods and products, such as the thickener carrageenan (a compound
from red algae) used in nut butters and toothpaste. Many medical products also come
from the ocean, including ingredients that help fight cancer, arthritis,
Alzheimer’s disease, and heart disease.
So even if you are living miles from the ocean or don’t eat seafood, not caring for
the oceans is like cutting off the hand that feeds you. Because healthy oceans are
crucial to all life on earth, we must look after the health and well-being of our
families and communities by protecting what has been entrusted to us. Christians
must rule the planet in a respectful way that reflects God’s rule as sovereign
Lord. This involves being educated about and responsible with plastic.
Loving the Environment, Loving Our Neighbor
The unbelieving world notices when Christians disregard or balk at environmental
stewardship.
For the last two years, while working at an eco-resort, I had the privilege to rub
shoulders with experts in marine biology, conservation, animal behavior, and
sustainable management and restoration. Our conversations would often come to the
devastating problem of plastic pollution in our oceans. They were intrigued to find
a Christian interested in protecting the planet since they viewed Christians as
wanting to pour all their efforts into helping people rather than the environment.
My response was that a Christian can meet the physical needs of our fellow humans
by taking care of the oceans. Since all people are dependent on environmental
resources for life, protecting the environment is protecting people—loving our
neighbor as Christ commanded.
The bottom line is that, as earth’s managers, Christians must understand the impact
plastic waste is having during our watch. We must seek to honor God in every area
of our lives, including by looking carefully at the information about plastic
pollution, monitoring how much plastic waste we produce, and responsibly disposing
of our plastic. We must also seek innovative ways to recycle what exists and to
restore damage to the environment.
Until the day God creates a new heaven and earth, we should live in holistic
obedience to Scripture. To love our Creator is to obey him and to love our
neighbors is to serve them. Our obedience to rule over creation well honors God and
can even open doors for us to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a confused
and hopeless world.
Trash Talk
Each year, an estimated 8 million tons of plastic pollution winds up in the ocean.
According to the 2019 International Coastal Cleanup report, in one day, volunteers
collected 23.3 million pounds of trash—enough to fill 1,557 semitrucks! Here were
some of the most common items the volunteers found.6
* 3.6 Million Straws & Stirrers
* Over 900,000 Plastic Grocery Bags
* 5.7 Million Cigarettes with Plastic Filters
* 1.7 Million Plastic Bottles
* 3.7 Million Food Wrappers
Much of the plastic pollution in the oceans comes from irresponsible management
after the garbage leaves your trash can. Though we can’t control how companies
dispose of our plastic waste, we can love our neighbors and care for creation by
wisely using and discarding plastic.
Reduce
Limit the amount of plastic on your purchases by choosing brands that use paper
instead. Also, shopping locally eliminates the plastic and foam packaging used by
online companies.
Reuse
The next time you shop, try reusable shopping bags. You can also purchase reusable
water bottles, utensils, straws, and coffee cups.
Recycle
In 2017, the US produced 35.4 million tons of plastic. Only 8.4% (3 million tons)
was recycled.7 Not every recycling plant responsibly disposes of plastic waste, but
we can do our part by depositing plastic products in recycling bins if our area
offers them.
Embark on an expedition with Mike Wild’s family in Deep-Sea Canoe, a Wild Brother’s
adventure film on Answers.tv.
Mike Wild is a cross-cultural worker to the peoples living in Asia Pacific. He and
his wife serve the indigenous families in the area and are translating the Bible
into their language. His four sons have grown up on the mission field and share the
excitement of missionary life in the popular DVD series The Wild Brothers.

Snow’s Secret Garden

on January 1, 2021
Featured in Answers Magazine
When it comes to the seasons, we often associate life with spring, not winter.
Depending on where you live, winter brings a barren landscape, hibernating animals,
and snow. But even snow harbors its own microscopic garden of life that we have
only just unearthed within the last decade. It might look different from a field of
wildflowers, but it’s cultivated by the same Creator.
A layer of freshly fallen white stuff may look pristine, but it’s actually home to
a hidden ecosystem teeming with algae, fungi, and bacteria. Where do these microbes
come from? Some are swept up into the atmosphere and then fall back to earth.
Others may sleep in the soil until a snowfall when they spring to life.
Researchers have discovered that microbes in snow, specifically bacteria, may even
sometimes form snowflakes. When bacteria are blown up into the atmosphere, water
molecules cluster around these microbes to form ice crystals.
Snow’s microscopic ecosystem of algae, fungi, and bacteria could be helping
maintain a healthy biosphere on earth. We know these microbes play a role in
cycling nutrients and carbon, and we’re still learning what else they do. The more
information we harvest from snow’s secret garden, the more we marvel at God’s
handiwork. Despite their differences, both spring and snow remind us of the Creator
of life.
Snowflake Seeds
Snowflakes form around a particle—anything from a speck of dust to a microbe like
bacteria—which makes them unique from sleet and hail. Sleet is made of frozen
raindrops, and hail is made of sleet droplets that collect water as they fall.
Watermelon Snow

Algae can turn fallen snow different colors including green, brown, and even pink.
“Watermelon snow” is pink because of ice-loving algae (Chlamydomonas nivalis) that
blooms when the sun heats up, turning the snow a rosy hue. Some people say this
snow even smells like watermelon.
1 Hr.
The time it takes for a snowflake to fall from a cloud to the earth.
Wildfires: Cause for Alarm?
by Dr. Gordon Wilson on April 1, 2021
Featured in Answers Magazine
As stewards of creation, sometimes we must work with fire, not against it.
During my college days, I fought forest fires for three summers as a member of the
20-man Highlands Fire Crew. In early June of 1979, I was fresh out of high school
when I arrived at Highlands Fire Camp in north central Washington. Out of the
frying pan and into the fire . . . quite literally. Our head foreman, Butch, led
our crew to battle blazes all summer long. Butch was a quintessential redneck. He
sported a can of chewing tobacco in each breast pocket. Beneath his orange hardhat,
his hair was sculpted with gel into a hairstyle of a bygone era, and his deep
backwoods drawl was lower than Johnny Cash’s.
Though he trained us well, he didn’t think putting out fires was always the best
thing. Once when Butch was driving our crew through the mountains, he glanced at a
dense stand of trees and announced, “That thar forest needs a good fawr.” Did he
want us all to have more overtime? No. He explained to us that when fires are
always put out, forests become loaded with too much fuel such as dense trees and
undergrowth on top of a thick accumulation of forest litter. He felt that
Washington State should let some fires burn to thin out the trees, consume the
dense undergrowth, and open up the forest (provided it wouldn’t endanger peoples’
lives). Butch was no ecologist, but he had common sense and enough experience with
fires to know that a fire can improve a forest in the long run.
So What Is Wise Dominion?
Forests are ecosystems that host many different kinds of plants and animals. In
Genesis 1:28, God commands mankind to have “dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Since wildfire impacts many creatures and humans, managing it surely qualifies as
dominion.
In western North America and Australia, millions of acres burn each year. Certain
ecosystems, particularly semi-arid grasslands, sagebrush, chaparral,1 open forests
of Ponderosa pine and other conifers in western North America, and eucalyptus
woodlands in Australia are prime candidates to go up in flames under the right
conditions. If this is more or less normal, why is wildfire considered a problem?
Fire destroys human life and stuff that we greatly value such as homes, barns, wild
and domestic animals, commercial buildings, vehicles, timber, and recreational
areas. So for over a hundred years, the basic well-intentioned plan has been to
suppress fires, to put them out.
However, we must keep the big picture in mind. We often see a particular ecosystem
like a snapshot at its peak beauty and glory. We don’t see all the factors that
contribute to that beauty over time. Fire significantly contributes to the beauty
of ecosystems. These ecosystems are adapted for fire and are healthiest when
periodic, less-devastating fires sweep through them every couple decades or so.
Wise dominion means working with the natural rhythms of these ecosystems.
Blessings of Blazes
If we look at wildfire only as something that mars the beauty of the land, we will
view it as only something to combat. But short-term unpleasantness often results in
long-term blessing. Smaller, more frequent prescribed fires declutter, refresh, and
renew the land. In other words, they prevent the accumulation of massive amounts of
dead wood and leaf litter, greatly reducing the threat of devastating megafires.
God has designed his creation so that fires release many nutrients and warm the
soil, causing new plant growth. Several conifers have cones that are designed to
open only after being scorched. Their seeds fall to the ground where they can
germinate. Eucalyptus trees are also adapted to fire. Their seeds are intolerant of
shade. When fires burn away the overstory, their seeds readily germinate in the sun
and the fresh layer of ash.
Fires also knock down diseased trees and eradicate insect pests. Whereas sickly,
weak, and diseased trees often don’t survive trial by fire, healthy trees are more
resilient and are more likely to endure, increasing the overall health of the
ecosystem.
The smoke attracts many good insects designed to home in on burned areas. People
may not like burnt real estate in the short term, but often new plant growth
quickly springs up and draws in many birds and smaller mammals looking for a new
home. The long-term benefits of smaller fires appear to outweigh the short-term
negatives.
Devastating Damages
Megafires are usually a different story. They can be so devastating that the
blessings are often eclipsed by the overwhelming damage. Recovery time is much
longer and may require costly human intervention (tree planting and returning
rescued animals to their natural habitat) to restore the flora and fauna.
These fires are often ignited due to poorly maintained powerlines, human
carelessness, arson, or natural causes like lightning strikes. And once lit, the
fires get out of control—fast. In 2020 alone, an area in California larger than the
state of Connecticut went up in flames. Australia’s 2019–20 bushfires scorched over
46 million acres. In 1950, the largest megafire in North American history, the
Chinchaga fire, consumed between 3.5 and 4.2 million acres in British Columbia and
Alberta, Canada.2 And more recently in 2016, the Fort McMurray fire in Alberta
torched over 1.4 million acres, causing 88,000 people to be evacuated from their
homes.
Often smaller fires merge into catastrophic megafires, killing people, destroying
many homes, and causing millions to suffer physically and emotionally due to the
oppressive and hazardous smoke blanketing enormous regions. Although good things
may result from catastrophic megafires, the negatives far outweigh the positives.
Is Climate Change to Blame?
With their green agenda, environmentalists incessantly claim that climate change is
the major cause of hotter, drier, and longer summers, resulting in megafires in the
US, Canada, and Australia, and hotter, longer dry seasons in the Amazon. We are
constantly told that the best way to battle these fires is to fight climate change.
But this is not the case.
Even if we assume that climate change is a factor, in both western North America
and Australia, climate change is at most a minor factor. A closer look at data of
Australian fires has clearly shown that wildfires were at low levels for a couple
of decades when prescribed burns were intensely practiced. As policies changed to
reduce the size of prescribed burns (due to pressure from environmental groups),
wildfires began to increase in size. In short, the major problem is not climate
change but rather the accumulation of woody fuel.3 Turns out, Butch was right: fire
suppression without periodic prescribed burns results in the accumulation of way
too much woody fuel.
The data is similar in California, but with one distinction. California has two
basic types of fire: fuel-dominated and wind-dominated. The sparsely populated
Sierra fires are examples of the former, whereas the highly populated chaparral
fires are examples of the latter and account for the vast majority of California’s
most deadly blazes on record. Neither excess fuel nor climate change is a major
driving factor in shrubby chaparral fires. Since 2000, most of the fires in
chaparral were caused by humans. A much better explanation for these catastrophic
conflagrations is the fact that several million people, wanting to flee the
concrete and commotion of urban settings, have sprinkled themselves into this
scenic yet dry ecosystem in the last few decades.4
Working with Nature, Not against It
It is clear that wildfires are becoming larger, more frequent, and dangerous in
semi-arid landscapes for a variety of reasons. Whatever the reasons, whenever dry
combustibles are plentiful, wildfires are inevitable. If fire is a normal and
essential feature of these types of ecosystems, how do we ensure that these fires
don’t become devastating to people and wildlife as they have in both North America
and Australia?
We need to humbly admit that only God is ultimately in control of all things: big
things, like the weather, climate, and megafires, and small things, like the number
of hairs on your head and the sparrows that live or die (Matthew 10:28–30).
Acknowledging the comfort of God’s sovereignty doesn’t mean we sit back and twiddle
our thumbs. God uses means to accomplish his ends, and the means he gave us is the
dominion mandate. God wants us to wisely rule over fire.
Land management at both the public and private levels should consider the ecology
of the land and the inherent hazards associated with wildfire. Any society seeking
the well-being of its people, plants, and animals should develop a good long-term
plan to prevent megafires or minimize damages when fires do occur. We can most
certainly lessen the unintentional impacts of fire each year by following a few
wise land management practices.
Avoid Fire-Sparking Activities
Those enjoying outdoor recreation in these areas should—when fire warnings are
posted—refrain from all activity that involves sparks and flames such as campfires,
fireworks, and off-road vehicles such as dirt bikes and ATVs. Those who kindle
wildfire by carelessness, arson, or badly maintained powerlines should be held
responsible.
Limited Burns
Remove most of the excess fuel by having prescribed, limited burns (this also helps
control the amount of hazardous smoke blanketing an area) or by thinning forests
(removal of certain trees and excess undergrowth) while at the same time working to
maintain the biodiversity in the ecosystem.
Though necessary, the option of initiating a prescribed burn is risky. The dynamics
of fire are complex, whether prescribed or wild. The interplay of weather and
terrain makes each fire unique and difficult to predict. Even prescribed burns have
gotten out of hand and have turned into megafires, displacing many people and
destroying many homes. Wind and weather can change suddenly, and even the best laid
plans can literally and figuratively go up in smoke. These costly mistakes have
made it more necessary for fire managers to go high tech. Because wildfire, though
highly complex, still obeys the laws of physics, fire managers are now using
computer modeling5 to help predict what a fire may do under a given set of
conditions. A model’s output is only as good as its input, which means these
systems will always need fine-tuning to make their predictions more accurately
reflect the behavior of real fires. Nevertheless, it is a good example of
exercising dominion in a tangible way, whether or not these managers are purposely
pursuing the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28.
Understand the Risk and Prepare
People who choose to build in a fire prone area should understand the inherent
risks and their responsibility. Is it wise to build and live in an extremely fire
prone area? Proverbs 22:3 says, “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the
simple go on and suffer for it.” Today in California, if Jesus taught the parable
of the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, he might say, “The foolish
man builds his wooden house in tinder-dry chaparral.”
If homeowners insist on building in these areas, they should at least be encouraged
to design, build, landscape, and/or retrofit existing structures to make them far
less vulnerable to wildfire. This would include clustering developments in less
vulnerable areas, surrounding them with well-watered barriers like orchards and
other firebreaks, and installing nonflammable roofing, which will resist catching
fire from flying embers. Since fires are inevitable, it is also prudent for
communities to have effective warnings and evacuation strategies.
The End of the Matter
Of course, it is good to discover the best fire management plans using science,
experience, and ingenuity; however, it is of utmost importance to exercise dominion
to the glory of God. When nations attempt to exercise dominion over fire—or
anything, for that matter—it is easy for best management practices to fall by the
wayside when their governments are pursuing power, businesses are pursuing
unreasonable profit, and environmental groups are pursuing the exultation of nature
over mankind. Even if a country or state implements effective, healthy ways to
manage fire, if God is cast aside and power, profit, or nature become idols, he can
still thwart our best efforts.
In Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and
create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.” Megafires are most
certainly calamities from a human perspective, and when we humble ourselves before
the Lord, he will bless our efforts and give us wisdom as we attempt to exercise
our dominion over the flames.
Designed for the Blaze
We see evidence of the Creator’s design everywhere we look, from the highest
mountain to the deepest ocean. God has given creation the ability to adapt and
thrive in the harshest of environments, including within wildfire.
Wildfire itself plays an important role in a natural cycle of renewal. But when we
look closer through the smoke, we see creatures and plants that actually rely on
wildfire to thrive. Here are a few examples of the Creator’s fingerprints amid the
flames.
The lodgepole pine, eucalyptus, and banksia trees have cones or fruits sealed shut
with resin. Only after a fire’s heat has melted the resin will these cones/fruit
release their seeds.
Black kites are attracted to brushfires in Australia where they can swoop down on
prey, such as lizards, running from the flames. Some studies suggest that black
kites spread fire intentionally by carrying burning twigs and dropping them in the
brush, scaring out even more prey.
Fire beetles use infrared receptors on their bodies to detect smoldering trees.
These beetles have been known to fly over 50 miles to a blaze and lay their eggs in
the damaged trees.
The Canada lynx hunts its favorite prey, snowshoe hares, which live among the low
branches of young forests that shoot up following a wildfire.
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Senior Fellow of Natural History at New Saint Andrews College,
earned an MS in entomology from the University of Idaho and a PhD from George Mason
University in environmental science and public policy. He is the narrator of the
nature documentary series The Riot and the Dance and the author of A Different
Shade of Green: A Biblical Approach to Environmentalism and the Dominion Mandate.
Environmental Clean-Up Crew
How bacteria and fungi have been shown to help break down plastics and clean up oil
spills, demonstrating the foresight of a creator
by Tom Hennigan on April 1, 2013; last featured April 22, 2021
Featured in Answers Magazine
Scientists are discovering bacteria and fungi that can break down modern compounds,
such as polyurethane plastics. Did the Creator foresee the biological resources we
would need to help correct our mistakes, as we fulfill His command to “subdue the
earth”?
Are we in danger of destroying life on the planet by continually dumping millions
of tons of polyurethane plastics into our waterways and landscapes and by enormous
oil spills in the oceans? In both cases, the problems may sound insurmountable
until we remember that our God is both the Creator and Sustainer of life and planet
earth.
Yale University students isolated a fungus in the Amazon rainforest capable of
breaking down manmade polyurethane plastics. This was the first time an organism
had been discovered that can do this. So there’s hope.
Help came from another unexpected source after two major oil spills in the Gulf of
Mexico. In June 1979 Mexico’s Ixtoc oil well exploded and spewed 30,000 barrels of
oil per day for ten months. It wreaked havoc first in Mexico and then Texas. Marine
life was reduced 80% in some areas. At least one endangered species of fish was
brought to the brink of extinction. The BP oil rig that exploded in 2010 spewed
53,000 barrels per day into the ocean, easily the worst accidental oil spill of all
time.
Though many questions about long-term effects still need answers, the doomsaying
seems highly exaggerated. Two years after the Ixtoc spill, many were surprised at
how quickly those environments returned to health. Just three decades later, people
are hard-pressed to find any evidence of the spill, and the same thing is happening
with the BP spill. It turns out that the lion’s share of the clean-up is done by
oil-eating bacteria.
God has designed bacteria with the ability to break down certain chemicals in oil
and natural gas.
Interestingly, God has designed bacteria with the ability to break down certain
chemicals in oil and natural gas that they can use for growth and reproduction. He
may have designed them directly or they may have developed an adaptation (through
mutation) that allows them to digest oil.
It seems that God already made provisions to limit the harmful impact of our sinful
and imperfect ways upon His creation.
What wonderful illustrations of the resilience of God’s creation, as well as
mankind’s opportunities to enhance it! God made bacteria that eat oil, and He made
a fungus that can digest a manmade substance, not necessarily because He directly
designed that function but because the fungus digests a natural product that is
very similar to plastic so that it can digest both products. On the other hand, it
appears that God intended for people to discover these fungal and bacterial
abilities and then cultivate them for good.
Evolutionary environmentalists bristle at these ideas because they envision nature
as extremely fragile and they caricature human dominion over nature as wanton
destruction.
The untapped potential of fungi and bacteria are just examples of how resilient and
self-correcting the Creator designed the earth’s ecosystems to be. Yet we must
interpret Genesis 1:28—God’s command for us to have dominion and subdue creation—in
light of the Creator’s heart.
Taking them in isolation, subdue and have dominion could seem to justify abuse of
the earth, but the wider context of Scripture makes that interpretation impossible.
Rather, our subduing and ruling the earth should mirror God’s own method of
bringing increasing order, vitality, fruitfulness, and diversity to the earth.
That is, as special beings made in God’s image, we are to rule as God rules, not
abusively and destructively but lovingly and creatively. We must balance short-term
and long-term needs, like a forester who balances today’s needs for timber with his
duty to maintain a healthy forest environment for generations to come. Effective
stewardship of creation requires understanding the individual creatures and their
relationships in these ecosystems.
Romans 1:20 explains that the invisible God has illustrated His invisible qualities
in the visible creation. One of those attributes is the triune relational nature of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Vital, healthy relationships in creation reflect this
aspect of God. God created a complex network of organisms to make life possible on
this planet, and it is humanity’s privilege as God’s appointed rulers to understand
and maximize these relationships for good.
Bacteria and fungi have a place in this scheme, too. They bridge the gap between
the nonliving and the living parts of the environment, as the fungi assist the
plants of the rainforest and the oil-eating bacteria clean the oceans.
If only we would take the Creator’s dominion mandate seriously, as He intended. We
would then focus on discovering the hidden potential that God has built into
nature, and finding how new relationships among His creatures can help us to better
care for creation and use it wisely—to His glory.
Tom Hennigan, M.S., M.P.S. is Associate Professor of Biology at Truett-McConnell
College, where he teaches organism biology and ecology, and is a contributing
writer for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Earth Day—The History of Two Trees
by Breanna Broad on April 22, 2022
Share:
* *
*
Have you ever strolled down a nature path only to stumble upon a pile of trash?
Well, today marks the 52nd Earth Day and the 150th Arbor Day is next week. People
across the globe will be gathering for cleanups, planting trees, and discussing
ways to reduce pollution. It might sound like an event Christians should
participate in as God created us to be good stewards of his creation in Genesis
1:26. Although, he still owns the earth. We are just his appointed caretakers. Our
dominion only extends to using it for appropriate purposes and caring for it in the
way God intended. But like everything else in this cursed world, man has twisted a
good thing with his own desires.
First, we need to recognize the parallels between how God made everything perfect,
but our sin corrupted it, and how Earth Day began as an ethical ideal, but now
exists as a secular holiday.
Parallels of History
When the sixth day ended, God claimed his creation to be very good (Genesis 1:31).
Both Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 2:16–17 tell us that “God made every tree . . .
pleasant to the sight and good for food” and that we “may surely eat of every tree
of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.”
What was the point of a tree they could not eat if God beheld it as good? This tree
could have been food for the animals.1 Ultimately, this tree gave Adam and Eve the
choice to either obey or disobey God.
Ultimately, this tree gave Adam and Eve the choice to either obey or disobey God.
Their disobedience caused the ground to become cursed with thorns and thistles
(Genesis 3:17–18); no longer could God’s creation be called perfect.
The consequences of man’s sin are evident all around us. Take the example of
littering mentioned above, or how it once was permissible to dump toxic waste into
local rivers. That’s why in 1970 Senator Gaylord Nelson forced the issue into
politics by creating Earth Day.2 At that time, it sparked radical change among 20
million Americans.3 But is it truly radical? Caring for the earth is an idea firmly
rooted in God’s Word from which man must borrow to celebrate Earth Day in the first
place.
Whenever man steals from the Bible without the appropriate context, he perverts the
absolute truth. This secular holiday has taken the focus away from our Creator to
celebrate the creation instead. Paul writes in Romans 1:25, “because they exchanged
the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator.” Man’s sin has distorted the directive from God in Genesis 1:28 to be good
stewards of the earth.
Rather than stewarding what God has given, mankind has turned it into a political
agenda. Denis Hayes, Earth Day’s chairman emeritus, declared that the federal
government has failed to handle the pandemic and climate change well. He even tried
to make the 2020 presidential election day Earth Day as COVID had robbed it from
them.4 There is nothing new under the sun in this situation.
Christians should remember that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2
Corinthians 11:14–15) and tempts anyone willing to listen to sin. His lies
convinced Eve to take the first bite into the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. Even now, he uses man’s sinful hearts to sound enticing, but
thankfully God made a way for us to fight against the roaring lion.
God’s Not Finished
Mankind’s modern-day observation of Earth Day may not leave as much for Christians
to celebrate; however, God has given us another tree to rejoice in. The cross is
described as a tree in 1 Peter 2:24, and our Savior died upon it. Like the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, God gives us another choice. We can either accept
the outworking of a tree, where God’s only begotten Son was sacrificed, for eternal
life or reject it for eternal separation. He bore our sins so that we might be able
to live in righteousness, because without Christ that is impossible.
Sadly, the main reason people make a big deal about saving “Mother Earth” is due to
them believing that this earth is all humanity has, and rejecting what Scripture
says about it. God has promised that this world will not last—but not in the ways
and not for the reasons that environmentalists prognosticate. He will do this so he
can restore his perfect creation without the curse and death. And God’s people will
dwell with him forever in a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1–5).
What can we take away from this day? That it is acceptable to look after the earth,
but not to the extent of fretting ceaselessly or worshipping it. Enjoying creation
should always take us back to the Creator and his Word.
Ice Cores—The Secret to Understanding Earth’s Climate?
by Ken Ham on January 8, 2021
Featured in Ken Ham Blog
Are ice cores hiding secrets about earth’s climate? Well, yes and no. Here’s what I
mean: yes they are, in the sense that they preserve post-flood history; and no they
aren’t, in the sense that, unlike what many secular scientists believe, they don’t
tell us about climate changes over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Recently an article highlighted scientists searching to find old ice—ice that’s
supposedly millions of years old—in Antarctica. They want to find this ice because
of tiny bubbles of gas inside. And they believe that gas preserves a history of the
atmosphere back millions of years, which can help us understand climate change then
and now.
But because these scientists have the wrong starting point—slow and gradual
processes over millions of years—they’re going to reach the wrong conclusions about
the ages of these ice sheets and how the data preserved in them can help us
understand the past and present.
In a biblical worldview, Antarctica hasn’t been covered with ice sheets for 30
million years.
You see, in a biblical worldview, Antarctica hasn’t been covered with ice sheets
for 30 million years. When we start with the history given to us in God’s Word, we
understand the Antarctic ice sheets like this: Antarctica moved to its present
position in the extreme south during and soon after the global flood, likely due to
catastrophic plate tectonics. The flood triggered an ice age. Vast amounts of snow
piled up in many places on earth, but particularly at the poles, building the ice
cores in decades or centuries, not slowly and gradually. So those little air
pockets haven’t been sitting there for millions of years—they record the
atmospheric conditions during the centuries following the flood.
Sadly, because evolutionists have the wrong interpretation of this ice and these
air pockets, politicians end up making bad decisions about supposed man-made
climate change because they have a totally wrong understanding of what really is
happening (and has happened) in this world.
Earth Day—A Christian Perspective
by Stacia Byers on April 21, 2001; last featured April 22, 2017
Share:
* *
*
April 22 marks the 31st celebration of Earth Day—an effort initiated to increase
awareness about environmental issues. The founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson,
believes, “The fate of the living planet is the most important issue facing
mankind.” In addition, the Earth Day Network (the coordinating body of Earth Day
activities) seeks to promote “a healthy environment and a peaceful, just,
sustainable world by spreading environmental awareness . . . .”
While it is laudable to see humans exercising their God-ordained responsibility to
care for the creation (Genesis 1:26–28), the above quotes show the prevailing view
on environmental issues is skewed, as a proper Biblical foundation is lacking.
First, the fate of the planet is, ultimately, not in the hands of mankind. While
humans are responsible for caring for the earth (as per the “Dominion mandate” in
Genesis 1:26-28), we are not in control of the earth. Rather it belongs to the
Creator Himself (Psalm 24:1), who has made us His earthly stewards.
The fate of the living planet is not the most important issue facing mankind.
Second, the fate of the living planet is not the most important issue facing
mankind. Ultimately, this decaying system will be replaced with a new heavens and
earth anyway (Romans 8:20–22; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1; Hebrews 1:10–12).
Rather, the most important issue facing mankind is this: will the individual choose
to acknowledge his Creator and be reconciled to Him? Romans 1:20 makes it clear
that knowledge of God is, at least on some level, evident to all, so those who
refuse to acknowledge their Maker are without excuse.
For Christians, the most important concern is that of sharing with others the good
news about the Creator who came to earth to redeem His creation from the curse of
sin.
Finally, a proper and balanced perspective on caring for the earth and its
inhabitants comes not from merely promoting “environmental awareness” but from
following the Biblical framework, i.e. recognizing humans were created by a loving
God and given the responsibility to rule over, subdue, and care for the rest of the
Creation, once “very good,” but now suffering from the curse of sin.
We need to beware of the tendency to worship and serve created things, as can
happen with some Earth Day activities. Instead we should give glory and honor to
the Creator and return to the authority of His Word.
What Started the Ice Age?
Special Feature
by Dr. Larry Vardiman on April 1, 2013
Featured in Answers Magazine
AUDIO VERSION
Share:
* *
*
Transporting enough ice and snow to cover the continents is impossible under
current climate conditions. The only viable scientific model would require a unique
catastrophe—like the breakup of the earth’s crust during the flood—to energize this
ice machine.
Geophysicists have a love-hate relationship with “the Ice Age” (the popular term
for a series of ice ages that supposedly struck the earth every 100,000 years). On
one hand, they believe they can prove that small fluctuations in the sun’s heating
over millions of years coincide with the coming and going of ice ages. Yet they
can’t figure out how such minor blips in solar heat could cause thick ice sheets to
cover half the globe every 100,000 years.
Disagreements on Climate Change
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 2, 2012
Featured in News to Know
Share:
* *
*
Scientifically literate people can disagree about the causes and cures of climate
change, study finds.
News Source
* ScienceNews: “Climate Skepticism Not Rooted in Science Illiteracy”
A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change dispels the notion that
people who disbelieve currently popular ideas about climate change are
scientifically illiterate. On the contrary, ScienceNews reports, “High science
literacy actually boosts the likelihood that certain people will challenge what
constitutes credible climate science.” The researchers attribute people’s
propensity to see climate change as an unsettled issue to “cultural factors such as
attitudes toward commerce, government regulation and individualism.” They find that
these cultural factors affect “what people accept as truth.”
“Simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public
conflict” about climate, Yale Law School’s Dan Kahan writes.
Kahan’s team surveyed 1,540 American adults to assess scientific literacy,
political ideas about the role of government in the economy, and personality.
People were classified as either more individualistic or more egalitarian in
outlook, and this factor was the primary determinant of the position people took on
climate change issues. “People with high degrees of individualism tended to have
attitudes that were pro-industry and skeptical of risks,” they found. Egalitarians
“tended to be morally ambivalent towards markets because they think that’s what
causes social disparities,” Kahan says, and were therefore willing to see higher
levels of regulation as necessary in the face of risks to society.
These findings will likely affect the strategy of policy makers as well as
educators. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) recently took up the
banner for the politically correct view of climate change. NCSE director Eugenie
Scott recognized that “people are very emotionally concerned” and if they “feel
threatened ideologically, politically or economically, ‘all the science in the
world won’t convince them.’” NCSE opposes “teaching the controversy,” as we pointed
out in our analysis of the recent debate in Tennessee regarding legal protection
for public school teachers wishing to critically analyze controversial issues,
including climate change.
There is a lot of controversy, not over climate change itself, as everyone agrees
climate changes, but over the cause of such changes, specifically whether man has
contributed significantly to such changes.
As Dr. Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in
Australia, has pointed out, the debate over climate change is far from a settled
issue even among secular scientists. He said, “There is a lot of controversy, not
over climate change itself, as everyone agrees climate changes, but over the cause
of such changes, specifically whether man has contributed significantly to such
changes. I am personally aware of several secular professional scientific societies
whose memberships are very divided on this issue, and the continuing debate is
heated. Therefore to assert there is no controversy over climate change is utterly
deceitful. Students should be told the truth about this debate among professional
scientists.”
By demonstrating that political and economic philosophy affect the views of
scientifically literate people, this study supports our contention that holding a
politically incorrect worldview does not prove a person is unwilling or unable to
understand science. As scientists seek answers requiring knowledge of the
untestable past—whether of origins, age of the earth, or history of the global
climate—assumptions must be made. Those assumptions are inevitably influenced by
worldview. Thus, not only do political opinions about the appropriateness of
regulatory measures influence the way scientifically literate people view the
evidence, so do presuppositions about global history.
Many theologically conservative Christians—as well as many secular scientists—are
uncomfortable with the politically correct version of the man-made global warming
crisis. The impact of global warming initiatives on the welfare of people is also a
concern to many who simply want to be sure decisions are based on sound scientific
reasoning and not emotional overkill. As Bible-believing Christians we see the
“dominion mandate” of Genesis 1:28 as a call for a balanced, responsible view of
environmental stewardship.
Global Warming in Perspective
by Melinda Christian on October 1, 2008
Featured in Answers Magazine
The study of earth’s history is not a subject of idle curiosity. We need to know
more if we hope to solve the environmental crises that face humanity. That’s one
reason that a biblical perspective on history is so important. It helps us make
sense of the problems we face today and prepare for the future.
These days it seems you can hardly turn on the TV, go online, or open your morning
newspaper without being confronted with the idea of global warming. In his 2006
Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore
presents global warming as an imminent threat to the planet and paints an alarming
picture of a future in which mankind ultimately destroys life on earth.
But global warming is far more complex than one 96-minute film can convey, and most
people are simply not getting some of the most important information.
How do we approach the subject of global warming?
It’s clear that global warming is a complex and emotionally charged issue, one that
cannot be ignored in today’s cultural and political climate. New claims and
counter-claims appear in the press with numbing regularity, leaving many Christians
uncertain what to believe. Rather than getting lost in the details, it is necessary
first to uncover the basic facts and then to understand the assumptions that drive
the interpretations of those facts.
Although many people may think otherwise, all of us have assumptions (beliefs) that
influence how we look at the facts. If a scientist believes in billions of years of
earth history, he will assume, for example, that polar ice needed hundreds of
thousands of years to build up over two miles in depth. Scientists who believe in
the biblical account of Noah’s Flood, on the other hand, believe the ice must have
appeared shortly after the Flood. Depending on their assumptions, equally skilled
scientists can reach very different conclusions.
In the global warming debate, it is important to separate fact from interpretation.
We hear a great deal about the dangers of CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases, but
rarely do we hear the facts behind the hype.
Even “facts” need to be qualified. For example, NASA has reported that the average
number of major hurricanes (categories 4 and 5) has doubled since 1970. But this is
“selective data sorting.” When you calculate the average of all hurricanes, you
find much less of an increase. In fact, the year 2007 saw a decrease in hurricanes.
So NASA’s “fact” may be true, but it is not the whole truth.
Let’s examine the basic facts and assumptions behind five major claims about global
warming . . .
Global Warming’s top five claims: fact or fiction?
Claim #1: Global Warming is Really Happening.
Traffic

Is modern technology to blame for global warming?

Global warming is really happening, in the strictest definition of the term.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, the average global surface
temperature has risen approximately 1.2°F (0.7°C) since 1880. However, this fact
alone does not tell us the causes of the warming.
Claim #2: We are Causing Global Warming.
The challenge is to separate natural and human causes, especially when we still
know so little about the factors in climate change.
It helps to get some historical perspective. We know from Scripture that the
worldwide Flood changed the earth’s climate dramatically, and ocean sediments
indicate that plate tectonics during the Flood had greatly heated the oceans,
rising to a temperature at least 36°F (20°C) warmer than today’s oceans.1 From that
warm period, temperatures dropped dramatically as the earth entered an Ice Age (see
“Ice Age,” p. 81).
Since the Ice Age, the earth’s temperature has fluctuated by only a few degrees.
For example, a medieval “warm period” (AD 900 to 1300) was followed by a “little
ice age” (1300 to 1880), when the overall temperature dropped about 2°F (1°C).
Global Temperatures

These relatively recent fluctuations can be correlated to natural changes, such as

volanic eruptions and cycles in the sun’s radiation. (When the earth receives more
energy from the sun, the earth gets warmer.) It is logical to assume that similar
factors continue to have some influence on today’s global warming.
What about human causes of global warming? Alarmists would have us believe that
increased CO2 emissions have triggered global warming. But it is important to
understand greenhouse gases. Basically, these are gases in the earth’s atmosphere
that regulate temperature by holding in heat from the sun, and as such these gases
are necessary for life. The primary greenhouse gas, which is responsible for the
vast majority of the greenhouse effect, is water vapor. Carbon dioxide, the second
most common greenhouse gas, provides only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect.
It is certainly true that the burning of fossils fuels is pumping more and more CO2
into the atmosphere, but it does not necessarily follow that these gases are the
sole cause of the warming. In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 may be, in part, a
result of warmer temperatures. The oceans have much more CO2 than the atmosphere,
and when the oceans warm up, the CO2 escapes into the atmosphere. (We see a similar
effect when we see gas bubbling out of a glass of warm Coke.)
We have much more to learn about climate change. But looking at the current
evidence, it seems very likely that both natural and human factors are at fault,
perhaps as much as 50-50, according to meteorologist Mike Oard.2
Rise of the Global Mean Temperature Since 1880

Claim #3: Global Warming Will Cause Many Animals and Plants To Go Extinct.
Polar Bear

Are polar bears and other endangered species threatened by warming weather?
Al Gore’s documentary presents viewers with a computer-animated polar bear treading
water, struggling to find rest on the last, thin shelf of ice, which breaks apart
under his weight. It is an image expressly designed to provoke emotion in the
viewer. Polar bears, in reality, are currently thriving.
Receding glaciers, melting ice caps, and other changes are, of course, likely to
affect a variety of animal and plant species. But based on the fossil record, it
appears that many species, such as the Miohippus (a small three-toed, woodland
horse) and the woolly mammoth, flourished in the changing climates after Noah’s
Flood, and eventually went extinct (see “A Dark and Stormy World,” p. 78). Humans
clearly had nothing to do with these climate changes and extinctions.
According to some climate models, which use current data and a variety of
assumptions to predict future climate patterns, several plant and animal species
could go extinct by 2050 due to climate change. Currently, however, there are no
documented extinctions resulting from global warming.
Claim #4: The Oceans Will Rise Dramatically in the Next Century.
Earth

Will regions of the world, such as Florida, be submerged by melting ice caps?
This is one of the more alarming claims. In An Inconvenient Truth Gore presents a
model in which an ice sheet, whether in Greenland or West Antarctica, slides into
the sea, raising the ocean level by 20 feet (6 m) and submerging much of the
earth’s coastlines, home to 100 million people. The film implies that this will
happen within the next 50 years.
While this would certainly be alarming if it were true, no hard scientific evidence
exists to back up the prediction. In fact, even Gore’s staunchest supporters don’t
seem to be convinced: www.stopglobalwarming.org claims that the ocean level will
rise only six feet in the next hundred years, a substantial difference—but they
present no scientific evidence to back up even their claim.
Based on climate models, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates
that ocean levels will rise approximately 16 inches (25 cm) during this century.
While this could result in many inconveniences (without proper planning), it is
certainly not the “doomsday” that’s been so widely predicted. Nor does such a
change seem very significant compared to the rapid rise of the oceans in the past—
approximately 200–300 feet (60–90 m)—when the ice melted at the end of the Ice Age,
flooding the coasts and burying early human settlements after Babel.
Claim #5: Global Warming Will Cause an Increasing Number of Weather Catastrophes.
Hurricane Damage

Will natural disasters, such as the hurricane that devastated New Orleans,
increase?
Global warming has been blamed for increased hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
droughts, and extreme temperatures. But we must keep a few things in mind. First,
extreme weather has never been out of the ordinary since Noah’s Flood. Secondly,
scientists now have satellites and other advanced equipment that can identify and
record modern weather events that would have gone unrecorded in the past, making it
difficult to validate whether these events have been increasing.
While the number of hurricanes has increased in recent decades, a recent study in
the journal Nature Geoscience concludes that global warming is not to blame for
increased hurricanes and, in fact, hurricanes are likely to decrease by the end of
the century.3
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to clearly identify global warming as the
cause of extreme weather events.
Global Warming: How Should Christians Respond?
Christians are reacting in very different ways to the issue of global warming—from
finding practical ways to reduce their “carbon footprint” to lobbying the
government for action, or ignoring the issue altogether. So what is a biblical
approach?
Understanding Human “Dominion”
When God gave Adam dominion over the earth, he was told to take care of the garden.
In verse after verse of Scripture, we learn that God made us stewards of His earth,
caretakers of the natural resources that He has provided on this planet. “The earth
is the Lord’s, and all its fullness” (Psalm 24:1).
But does this mean that we are to protect nature at any cost?
God did not create human beings merely to serve or “preserve” the earth. Rather, He
made us in His image, as His highest creation, and He gave us the privilege and
duty to glorify Him in everything we do, including managing the earth to make it
more beautiful and productive. Just as God “planted a garden,” we want to be good
gardeners, too.
The earth was made as our dwelling place, and while it is our responsibility to
maintain it, we must not place higher importance on the environment than on the
people who inhabit it. The Industrial Revolution, so often vilified by global
warming activists, has improved the quality of life for millions, even billions, of
people. It has also “saved” the lives of untold millions.
Weighing Our Actions
Whatever action we take, whether as individuals or through government action, we
must carefully weigh the consequences. While many people support laws to reduce CO2
emissions, believing that this will appreciably slow the progress of global
warming, we must consider whether the science supports this claim. We must also
beware of unintended consequences, such as the loss of personal liberties.
Whatever a person’s view of the government’s role, it is undeniable that laws to
limit CO2 output would have far-reaching effects on the poor. The increased costs
of producing food, powering vehicles, and heating and cooling homes are only a few
of the potential negative results. Lower-income families, especially in less-
developed countries, would be hit especially hard.
E. Calvin Beisner, a respected environmental expert, examines the economic side-
effects of anti–CO2 policies and concludes: “The policies that are being promoted
to fight global warming not only will not make a difference . . . but also will
have a great harmful impact on the world’s poor.”4
According to Beisner, even the vast changes proposed by global warming activists
would have only a negligible effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, with little
possibility of reversing or even slowing global warming. But if the proposed
changes become reality, the potential costs in lives and freedoms would be
incalculable.
But should we do nothing to fight global warming? There are practical things
individuals can do to maintain our planet and keep it beautiful and safe for the
next generation, such as reducing waste, recycling, and driving fuel-efficient
vehicles. The choice to take any of these—or stronger—measures should always be
based on a clear understanding of the facts and the eternal principles in God’s
Word.
God’s Word tells us about a “new heaven and a new earth” that He is planning for
His people, free of sin and the Curse. Our current environmental problems are
serious and worth further thought and action, but the Bible puts all such issues
into proper perspective. While we need to behave wisely in the fleeting moments we
have on this earth, a much greater change is coming, one that should modify our
behavior—the “global warming” described in 2 Peter 3:10. “But the day of the Lord
will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great
noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works
that are in it will be burned up.”
Footnotes
1. S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman,
and K. P. Wise, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth
History,” in R. E. Walsh, ed. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 615.
2. After a review of the scientific literature, meteorologist Mike Oard estimates
that natural causes account for about 50% of surface temperature increases since
1880. M. Oard, “How Much Global Warming Is Nature?”
answersingenesis.org/articles/am.
3. Thomas R. Knutson et al., “Simulated Reduction in Atlantic Hurricane Frequency
under Twenty-First-Century Warming Conditions,” Nature Geoscience, May 18, 2008,
pp. 359–364.
4. D. James Kennedy and E. Calvin Beisner Overheated: A Reasoned Look at the Global
Warming Debate (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida: Coral Ridge Ministries, 2007), p. 23.
Global Warming
Examine the Issue Carefully
by Michael J. Oard on September 5, 2006; last featured September 19, 2006
Featured in Answers Magazine
Share:
* *
*
Many articles and books have been written in recent years on the subject of global
warming—much of the information confusing.
Some contain much hysteria, like the special report in the April 3, 2006, issue of
Time and an article in a recent National Geographic.1,2 Practically all the
articles in these issues blame people and emphasize the potentially harmful effects
of global warming. Even Hollywood, through the movie The Day After Tomorrow and
others, aggressively promotes the idea of a coming, rapid ice age caused by global
warming.3 Eighty-six prominent Christian leaders recently jumped on the bandwagon
with the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI).4
But how is this information to be evaluated? We should first check the data. As
with the creation/evolution issue, we need to separate interpretations from facts.
Athabasca Glacier

Photo courtesy Michael Oard

Athabasca Glacier, Canadian Rockies, was near the sign in 1890. It has since melted
back to its current location due to global warming. (Click to enlarge.)
The Facts
Practically all atmospheric scientists (the author included) agree that global
warming has occurred. The raging debate is over how much of it is caused by man and
whether global warming will be harmful. Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling,
climatologists and critics of greenhouse warming hype,5 write, “In the broadest
perspective, global warming is a very real thing, undeniable from surface
temperature readings taken over much of the planet in the last 100 years.”
The amount of warming since 1880 has been about 1.2°F (0.67°C).6 However, a certain
percentage of this warming is likely due to natural fluctuations, especially on the
sun.7 From about 1300 to 1880, the Little Ice Age8occurred, in which practically
all the glaciers in the world advanced, whereas now they are receding. There was
less energy from the sun during the Little Ice Age and more volcanic activity,
which helped cool the surface of the earth.9,10 It is possible such natural long-
term climatic cycles caused half of the 1.2°F (0.67°C) rise.
Meanwhile, since 1880 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about
30%. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have also increased. Researchers
desire to compare how these greenhouse gases affect the climate in relation to CO2.
So, they convert the buildup of other greenhouse gases into CO2 “equivalency
units.” In other words, they change the climatic effect of the gases into one
measure. The climatic effect of these greenhouse gases results in an increase of
30% in CO2 equivalency units. The increase in all greenhouse gases has the climatic
effect of increasing CO2 by 60%, which increases global warming.
One Problem
Climate specialists run computer simulations using the above-noted formula, in
which they double the amount of CO2 and see how much the temperature rises. These
simulations are based on estimations and assumptions and not exact figures. The
many types of simulations predict a temperature rise of 3 to 10°F. Unfortunately,
many politicians and environmentalists take such imperfect climate simulations and
claim them to be fact. This is problematic. It is no wonder we have a greenhouse
scare. However, if all the greenhouse gases have caused an increase by 60% CO2 in
equivalency units, and man has only warmed the atmosphere about 0.6°F, then these
climate simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of CO2.
More Research Needed
What we really need is more careful research. All positions should have a say on
the issue. Unfortunately, the media and proponents of significant technology-
induced global warming have demonized many qualified critics and have accused them
of conspiring with the oil companies. These are critics who do not feel that a
logical case has been made to prove that manmade technologies are at fault.
All of us must study both sides of the global-warming issue (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
to better understand what the Lord requires of us. Although God gave us the command
to have dominion over the earth, He also instructs us to care for and be good
stewards of it.
Could Global Warming Cause Another Ice Age?
Some climate scientists believe that global warming will slow or stop the northward
oceanic heat flow in the Atlantic Ocean, causing an ice age. Northern Europe is
significantly warmer due to this ocean heat. The stopping of this flow was the
basis for the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow.
A new oceanic study, based on measurements over 47 years, claims that the northward
heat transport has already decreased by 30%.1 Computer climate simulations
suggested that such a decrease would require a global temperature increase of 7–
11°F (4–6°C) after nearly a century.2 Some scientists believe that global warming
will cause a more rapid climate change and that we need to act now.
So far, the reduced heat flow has caused no climatic effect in Europe. Moreover,
Carl Wunsch of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believes the climatic
significance of the northward heat transport is greatly overblown and that it is
difficult to stop it.3 The MIT professor further writes that there are many
unknowns associated with ocean and atmospheric climatic interactions, and that
climate simulations have many difficulties. Besides, the prevailing winds drive the
ocean currents and are mostly responsible for the northward heat transport. The
addition of fresh water on the ocean’s surface will not slow the heat flow, which
is an unsupported assumption made in climate simulations.
1. Bryden, H. L., Longworth, H. R., and Cunningham, S. A., Slowing of the Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation at 25° N., Nature 438:655–657, 2005.
2. Goss Levi, B., Is there a slowing in the Atlantic Ocean’s overturning
circulation? Physics Today59(4):26–28, 2006.
3. Wunsch, C., Abrupt climate change: An alternative view, Quaternary Research
65:191–203, 2006.
Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far
by Michael J. Oard on September 20, 2006
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
Reasons why Christians should be cautious about the controversial topic of global
warming are listed. Examples of exaggeration by doomsayers are numerous and a few
are presented. Based on what is known about global warming, the presumed global
temperature increase and the amount of carbon dioxide increase since 1959, a case
is presented that global warming is not so dire. Manmade versus natural climatic
warming is discussed. Evidence that the climate models are too sensitive to a
doubling of carbon dioxide is given. The question of whether global warming will
have a net harm is briefly touched upon. The conclusion is that more unbiased
research is needed.
Keywords: human-caused, global warming, exaggeration, doomsayers, temperature,
carbon dioxide, natural, climactic, atmosphere, media, misinformation, hysteria,
environmentalists, greenhouse gases, fluctuations, hurricanes
Introduction
We are constantly bombarded with bad news about global warming. Hurricanes are
increasing in frequency and intensity, the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are
melting and raising the sea level, the Arctic Sea ice cap is melting, droughts are
imminent, people are dying of the heat and so on.1 Global warming will even cause
larger and more toxic poison ivy.2 It is all because man is polluting the
atmosphere with carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction
of tropical forests. We must act now, advocates claim, or we will become engulfed
in a runaway heat blast. This is the doomsayers’ position.
Other voices allege that global warming will halt the ocean heat circulation in the
Atlantic and plunge the earth into the next ice age, which is due soon. Already,
the North Atlantic poleward heat transport has supposedly decreased 30%!3
There are also a number of scientists who believe global warming, so far, has been
slight. They believe that doomsayers have not proven their case for the expected
huge temperature increase for a doubling of carbon dioxide, and that increased
carbon dioxide may have a net beneficial effect. In fact, 20,000 scientists, of
whom about 2,700 of them are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who are in a position
to understand the global warming issues, have signed the following statement:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s
climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth.4
I also advocate this position and further reasoned research, providing a forum for
the views of both advocates and dissenters of extreme human-caused global warming.5
Because of all the bad news and variable positions on the issue, it is no wonder
that confusion seems to be rampant. Polls indicate that most people have become
convinced that global warming is a serious problem. This is likely due to media
bombardment. The only question remaining for most people is what to do about it.
Should we aggressively fight global warming, should we fight it piecemeal with
gradual measures, or do we have time for more research?
Reasons for Caution
How should the Christian evaluate this issue? We should first understand some of
the assumptions and goals of not only those advocating we act now, but also the
whole environmentalist movement. Second, we need to check the data—what we know for
sure. Third, we will then be in a better position to evaluate any proposed courses
of action to mitigate global warming.
Just like the creation/evolution issue, we need to separate raw data from
interpretations. My theme verse in creation research is 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “But
examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (NASB). We are to
hold fast to the Bible as God’s word and instruction book to us and to Jesus as our
Lord, Savior, and Creator. We should evaluate everything, and not at the
superficial level. I examine the data, the assumptions and the interpretations
before I delve into biblical solutions to earth science problems.
Christians especially need to be cautious when it comes to the issue of global
warming and other environmental issues. One of the reasons is that these issues
have been hijacked by individuals who desire to change our way of life, and in
particular, the Christian worldview that has guided the Western Hemisphere. Veith
concluded: “A big part of the problem is that the current environmental movement
has been hijacked by the far left.”6 There are also pantheists involved. These
groups have agendas for social engineering. Second, some environmentalists are
promulgating misinformation, as will be documented below. It is important that we
examine what is known for sure before we speculate on future climate scenarios.
Third, those who believe we must act now dominate public discussion and are served
by a biased media. Fourth, computer simulations of climate are not always accurate
predictors of the future and, with a doubling of carbon dioxide, exaggerate the
amount of global warming. But too many people take these simulations as
authoritative. Fifth, doomsayers use ad hominem arguments against those who
disagree with them—a sign of a weak case and a refusal to enter into reasonable
dialog.
Just recently, eighty-six prominent Christian leaders jumped on the doomsayer
bandwagon with the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI).7 Based on a report in
World magazine, it looks like many of these evangelicals have not examined the
subject in depth and were influenced by the barrage of propaganda.8 The Evangelical
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance has recently taken the ECI to task for poor
analysis of the situation, and the likelihood that the poor would be harmed by
draconian government regulations that attempt to curb carbon dioxide emissions. For
example, government actions that curb greenhouse gases likely would cause the price
of energy to jump astronomically. The poor could not afford energy that is required
for development.
Examples of Hysteria
Examples of misinformation and hysteria are not hard to find. One of the most
recent examples of hysteria was a special report on global warming published in the
April 3, 2006, issue of Time magazine.9 The article flatly states without any
qualifications, “The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame.”10 Humans
are blamed for global warming, and the potentially harmful effects are
emphasized.11 The article claims that serious debate has quietly ended (although
this is untrue) and lists many devastating weather, climate and environmental
occurrences. Serious debate has only ended because radical environmentalists now
dominate the discussion and malign those who disagree. This is not unlike the
creation/evolution debate.
There are many other examples of wrong information, half-truths and hysteria. In
the January 22, 1996, issue of Newsweek magazine, the front cover exclaimed, “The
hot zone—blizzards, floods & hurricanes: blame global warming.”12 Believe it or
not, even blizzards such as the powerful East Coast northeaster of January 1996
have been blamed on global warming by some advocates. It seems like some believe
all bad weather is caused by global warming. One of the problems in countering such
misinformation is that people have short memories or do not read weather history.
Probably the most outrageous example of false information is a video produced in
1990 that claimed world temperatures would rise 55°F (30°C) by the year 2050!13
There is even a dramatic movie promoting an ice age rapidly caused by global
warming.14 Although the movie was admitted to be a Hollywood exaggeration, many
scientists see such an ice age, caused by global warming, developing more slowly,
perhaps over of the course of several decades. This belief has been reinforced by
what are believed to be indications of abrupt climate change shown by ice cores
from the Greenland Ice Sheet.15 In the introduction to a special issue of the
Journal of Geophysical Research on ice cores, Hammer and others stated:
These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably
20°C in central Greenland … . The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal
to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and
some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric
circulation, change in as little as 1–3 years.16
Such temperature changes in Greenland are related to the atmospheric circulation
and would affect much of the Northern Hemisphere. Such rapid changes are indeed
scary, but their deductions are based on their wrong interpretations of ice cores
as a result of their assumption that the ice sheets are millions of years old.17
Al Gore wrote a book on global warming in which he seemed to believe every dire
prediction of the radical environmentalists.18 Recently, he has produced a video
documentary with an accompanying book, called An Inconvenient Truth. The video
contains the same old misinformation. M. Bergen stated:
But Mr. Gore’s radical political agenda and tendency for half-truth have undergone
no such makeover … Mr. Gore employs stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed
rhetoric to contend that opposition views on climate change are rooted in callous
profiteering.19
Mr. Gore’s hysterical and ad hominem attacks are typical of doomsayers. It is
common for these advocates to claim that those who disagree with them are working
for the oil companies. But we should look at the agendas of the radical
environmentalists, and the great economic benefit for them to keep the pot stirred.
The Data
We should look at the observational data before we hypothesize about future climate
scenarios. The probable average degree of surface warming in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1880 has been only 1.2°F (0.7°C).20 Figure 1 shows this warming.
However, this number has resulted from the analysis of complex data. Over the
years, measurement techniques of land and ship temperatures have changed. For
terrestrial stations, the instrument shelters have changed locations, the type of
thermometer has changed, the time of observation has changed and the microclimate
around the shelter has changed. Man-made effects that are unrelated to increased
greenhouse gases also can affect temperature readings over the years. The most
notorious problem is the urban heat island effect, where the concrete of expanding
cities heats up the air. Those who have analyzed the temperature record claim to
have dealt with this problem, but some skeptics question whether researchers have
excised all the urban heat island effect.21
Global warming models predict that temperatures will increase to between 16 and
19°C by the year 2100.

From Kluger, Ref. 9, pp. 38–39.

Figure 1. Global annual average temperatures and some of the model projections.
So, it seems likely that global warming has occurred based on the temperature
measurements, retreating glaciers and other effects. However, doomsayers like to
claim that skeptics do not believe in any global warming. This is untrue, since
practically all skeptics agree that some global warming is occurring. This is not
the issue. Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, climatologists and critics of
global warming hype, admit:
In the broadest perspective, global warming is a very real thing, undeniable from
surface temperature readings taken over much of the planet in the last 100 years.22
But there are also climatic effects other than carbon dioxide that have changed the
temperature trends over the years. John Christy and Roy Spencer give an example of
increased irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley causing warmer nighttime and cooler
daytime temperatures, especially in summer.23 Christy and Spencer conclude: “And I
[Christy] always say that improvements still have to be made on a lot of our
surface temperature data sets and that is what I spend a lot of my time doing.”24
Christy and Spencer of the University of Alabama pioneered the use of satellites to
measure the temperature of the troposphere. Their data had shown only a slight rise
in temperature since 1979, compared to a substantial rise from the surface data
during that period. Taking away the strong 1998 El Niño year, there was no
significant change at all. However, scientists have recently found errors in the
satellite data, although their analysis was in error itself.25 Christy and Spencer
went back and corrected their satellite data, and now it agrees within the lower
end of the error bars of the surface data. Christy and Spencer sum up their
satellite data: “So it is correct scientifically to say there is no significant
discrepancy in the global temperatures between the surface and the satellite.”26
Another key observation is that carbon dioxide has been increasing in the
atmosphere since measurements were initiated in the late 1950s (Figure 2).27 The
level of carbon dioxide has likely been increasing since about 1850 due to the
industrial revolution and the destruction of tropical rainforests. Other greenhouse
gases have also been increasing. It is well known that carbon dioxide will enhance
the greenhouse effect. But, it is also well known that carbon dioxide is a minor
greenhouse gas and that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by far. Carbon
dioxide provides less than 5% of the greenhouse warmth that makes our planet
livable. It is the water vapor that actually stabilizes our climate.28 If it gets
too hot, evaporation will increase and clouds will cool the climate by reflecting
sunlight from the tops of the white clouds. It also works the other way; cooler
temperatures result in less cloudiness and more absorption of solar radiation at
the surface.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have clearly increased since 1850.

Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million by volume, ppm, from
Siple Station, Antarctica, ice cores (squares) and Mauna Loa, Hawaii (crosses).
Solid line is carbon dioxide equivalency units for all greenhouse gases.29
That is the data, and both advocates and skeptics of runaway greenhouse warming
start with this same data. The problem is over the interpretation of the data, just
like in the creation/evolution controversy. There are three main interpretive
problems: (1) how much of the warming is caused by man adding carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere and how much is from natural fluctuations, (2) how much temperature
increase is expected from increased carbon dioxide and (3) will the harm from
rising temperatures outweigh the benefit from warmer temperatures? I will analyze
each of these interpretive aspects below. A related question is what can we do to
minimize temperature change and how can we measure progress?
Natural versus Man-Made Global Warming?
There are indeed natural climatic fluctuations that cause warmer temperatures. A
certain percentage of recent global warming is due to long-term natural
fluctuations, including effects of the sun.30 Volcanoes can also cause short-term
cooling,31,32 but a lack of volcanism can result in warmer temperatures. From about
1400 to 1880, the Little Ice Age occurred,33 in which practically all the glaciers
in the world advanced, whereas now they are receding (Figure 3). At times people
could ice skate on the Thames River in London, whereas that is unthinkable today.
The Little Ice Age was likely caused by the combination of slightly less energy
from the sun and more volcanism, both of which allow the surface of the earth to
cool. There were periods during the Little Ice Age in which the sun exhibited few
sunspots. Few sunspots cause a cooler solar temperature and less solar radiation
because the stronger compensating effect of solar faculae is also reduced. Before
the Little Ice Age, there was the Medieval Warm Period. So natural fluctuations in
the past have been significant.34
The Athabasca Glacier has retreated since 1890.

Figure 3. Athabasca Glacier, Canadian Rockies, was near the sign in 1890 and has
since melted back to its current location due to global warming.
Scientists are uncertain how much global warming is caused by these natural
fluctuations. Roy Spencer stated:
We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind,
because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind. Jim
Hansen had his smoking gun and said that he could prove that it’s all man-made.35
Jim Hansen is a leading doomsayer, and these advocates tend to believe that all the
global warming is caused by man. So the belief in how much warming is natural
depends upon one’s bias. Right now it is too soon to know the proportion. Beisner
and others stated:
The mechanisms driving natural climate variations are too poorly understood to be
included accurately in computer climate models. Hence, the models risk overstating
human influences.36
Further evidence that natural fluctuations are significant is that during the early
and mid-1970s, a cooling trend increased the amount of sea ice. This happened at a
time when the buildup of carbon dioxide should have caused global warming. It
initiated the idea that the ice age was around the corner, since according to the
Milankovitch mechanism, the next ice age is due soon. Several books with this theme
were published. One of them was The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?
Can we Survive it?37 Climatologist Stephen Schneider published The Genesis
Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, in which he asked: “Would a new cycle of
droughts related to a global cooling trend portend chronic famine and world chaos?”
38 Yes, global cooling would initiate droughts. It is interesting that after the
cooling trend petered out and global warming continued, Schneider dusted off the
drought scare, but this time for global warming:
What is more, several climate models predict that summer precipitation will
actually decline in Midcontinental areas, including the central plains of the U.S.
… A decline in agricultural productivity in the Middle West and Great Plains, for
example, could be disastrous for farmers and the U.S. economy.39
A significant proportion of the global warming has been an increase in nighttime
and winter temperatures, which do not impact man and the environment as much as an
increase during the day or summer. Although it was previously believed that the
Arctic was not warming, it certainly seems to be warming today.40 However, the
South Pole seems to be cooling.41
So, for the time being and until more certain information is available, I will
assume that half of the 1.2°F (0.7°C) rise is caused by natural long-term climatic
cycles and the other half is due to man-made global warming. This means that the
man-made temperature rise since the late 1880s is likely only about 0.6°F (0.3°C)
or less.
How Much Warming after Carbon Dioxide Doubles?
Climate specialists run computer simulations in order to determine the temperature
sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. In the model, they double the amount of
CO2, leaving all other variables the same between computer runs, and see how much
the temperature rises. There have been many climate models developed with many
types of simulations with a wide variety of temperature responses. For a doubling
of carbon dioxide, the simulations predict a temperature rise ranging from 3 to
11°F (1.5 to 6°C).42 Figure 1 shows some of these temperature projections to the
year 2100. Unfortunately, many environmentalists, politicians, and media
celebrities take such imperfect climate simulations literally, which is
problematic. No wonder we have a greenhouse scare.
But, let us look more closely at the data. The amount of CO2 added to the
atmosphere since 1880 is about 30%. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, also
have increased. In order to compare these other gases to CO2, researchers put them
into CO2 equivalency units, which adds another 30% (see solid curve in Figure 2).
So, essentially CO2 has increased 60%. This 60% rise in CO2 and its equivalency
units has resulted in approximately a 0.6°F (0.3°C) rise in temperature. At this
rate, a doubling of CO2 will produce only a 1°F temperature rise. The climate
simulations are, therefore, much too sensitive to the effects of CO2. The super-
sensitivity of the climate simulations could be due to the problems in estimating
global variables in the models. Clouds, precipitation and radiation are notoriously
difficult to parameterize in the models.43 Ocean processes and snow and ice
reflectivities44 are also not handled well by the models.
Doomsayers counter that the increase in pollution, mainly sulfur dioxide, causes a
cooling effect, masking the effect of the warming.45,46 Although there is probably
some truth in this secondary hypothesis, Christy and Spencer maintain that it is
speculation.47
Will there be a Net Harm to Man and the Environment?
Those who believe we must act now naturally emphasize the negative effects of
global warming. But what about positive benefits? Will the positive benefits
outweigh the negative benefits?
More people would be expected to die of the heat from global warming, advocates of
a hot earth are quick to point out. But fewer people should die of the cold. Since
nearly ten times the number of deaths result from severe cold than from severe
heat,48 global warming should save more lives. Furthermore, affordable energy,
which gives off carbon dioxide, is needed to protect from extreme heat as well as
extreme cold. More warmth will also result in an increased growing season and more
area for agriculture.
Increased drought, of course, would be quite harmful to man. However, Christy and
Spencer show that there has been no long-term increase in drought or wetness,
although there is significant variability from year to year.49 Some scientists
claimed that droughts would increase in the future with further global warming, but
this is speculative. Increasing temperature results in increasing water vapor in
the air and increasing precipitation. Global precipitation increased 1% per decade
during the twentieth century.50 Thus, global warming means a wetter planet causing
more plant growth, which should be a boon to agriculture. Besides, more plants will
soak up some of the extra carbon dioxide, producing more growth and requiring less
water.
More frequent and intense hurricanes obviously would be a great detriment to man
and the environment. Warmer atmospheric temperatures result in warmer ocean
temperatures, which fuel hurricanes. So, some increase in hurricanes should be
expected, but the question is how much of an increase. Much discussion has ensued
lately because of the four strong hurricanes that slammed into the southeast United
States in 2005. Some researchers have made extraordinary claims on future hurricane
deaths and damage.51 The significant intensification of hurricanes and their
frequency is controversial.52,53 Christy and Spencer show a graph of hurricane
strikes in the United States since 1850, not including 2005, that shows no
significant trend.54 The increase in deaths and damage is mainly because more
people have built near the coast.
There is also no trend or maybe a downward trend in the frequency of strong
tornadoes in Oklahoma.55 The number of weak tornadoes has increased, but this is
likely due to increased detection and reporting.
Then there are the negative effects if draconian government action is taken to curb
the increase in carbon dioxide. Christy and Spencer say that the change in
temperature from reduced carbon dioxide emissions likely would be unmeasureable,56
while the cost to fight global warming would be well in excess of a trillion
dollars per year.57 The economic hardship, especially on the poor, would be
substantially greater than any purported slowing of global warming.58
In regard to a rise in sea level, the magnitude of which is under dispute, people
can slowly move inland or build more and higher dikes, since the climate change
would be slow.59 One interesting beneficial aspect to global warming would be
increased shipping in the Arctic Ocean.60
So the jury is out on whether global warming will have a net harmful effect on man
and the environment. What is needed is more objective research on the level of
harm.
A new study of northward oceanic heat transport in the North Atlantic claims that
the transport has already decreased 30%, based on 47 years of measurements.61
Computer climate simulations had suggested that such a decrease would require a
global temperature increase of 7 to 11°F (4–6°C) after nearly a century.62 Some
scientists are afraid of an abrupt climate change coming soon, and believe we need
to act now. However, the reduced heat flow has caused no climatic effect in Europe.
Moreover, Carl Wunsch of MIT believes the climatic significance of the heat
transport is greatly overblown, emphasizing that it is difficult to stop the
northward heat transport.63 Wunsch further writes that there are many unknowns
associated with ocean and atmospheric climatic interactions, and that climate
simulations have many difficulties. Besides, the average wind drives the ocean
currents and is the most important factor responsible for the northward heat
transport. The addition of fresh water on the ocean surface will not slow the heat
flow, as has been assumed in climate simulations.
More Research Needed
Clearly, more careful research is needed.64 All positions should have a say on the
issue. Unfortunately, many qualified critics are demonized by the media and
proponents of runaway global warming. Critics are commonly accused of believing in
a flat earth.65 Furthermore, we need to compare the potential benefits with the
potential harms of global warming. Those evangelicals who signed the ECI need to
study both sides of the issue (1 Thessalonians 5:21) instead of jumping on the
doomsayer bandwagon. And if the evidence shows that global warming should be
reduced, we should find and invest in new, cost-effective technologies that do
so.66
Footnotes
1. Appenzeller, T., D.R. Dimick, D. Glick, F. Montaigne, and V. Morell, 2004. The
heat is on. National Geographic 206(3):2–75.
2. Milius, S., 2006. Pumped-up poison ivy; carbon dioxide boosts plant’s size,
toxicity. Science News 169(22):339.
3. Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005. Slowing of the Atlantic
meridional overturning circulation at 25°N. Nature 438:655–657.
4. Oregon Petition Project, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm.
5. Oard, M.J., 1997. The Weather Book. Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 70–71.
6. Veith, G.E., 2006. To protect and conserve. World 21(20):30.
7. www.christiansandclimate.org. Also see March, 2006, Christianity Today, page 9.
8. Bergin, M., 2006. Greener than Thou. World 21(16):18–21.
9. Kluger, J., 2006. Global warming. Time 167(14):28–42.
10. Kluger, Ref. 9, p. 34.
11. Kluger, Ref. 9, p. 34.
12. Newsweek 127 no. 4.
13. Anonymous, 1990. The Fragile Planet: Alterations in the Atmosphere. Films for
the Humanities and Sciences, Princeton, New Jersey.
14. Oard, M.J., 2004. The greenhouse warming hype of the movie The Day After
Tomorrow. Acts and Facts Impact #373, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon,
CA.
15. Oard, M.J., 2005. The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the
Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. Institute for Creation Research, Santee,
California, pp. 123–132.
16. Hammer, C.U., P.A. Mayewski, D. Peel, and M. Stuiver, 1997. Preface. Journal of
Geophysical Research 102 (C12), p. 26,315.
17. Oard, Ref. 14, pp. 1–199.
18. Gore, A., 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Houghton
Mifflin Company, New York.
19. Bergin, M., 2006. Convenient spin. World 21(24):26
20. Kluger, Ref. 9, p. 38.
21. Balling, Jr., R.C., 1995. Global warming: messy models, decent data, and
pointless policy. In, Bailery, R. (ed.), The True State of the Planet, The Free
Press, New York, pp. 83–107.
22. Michaels, P.J. and R.C. Balling, Jr., 2000. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air
about Global Warming. CATO Institute, Washington, D.C., p. 2.
23. Christy, J. and R. Spencer, 2006. Satellite temperature data, George C.
Marshall Institute, pp. 11–14.
24. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 15.
25. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, pp. 18–19.
26. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 16.
27. Keeling, C.D., T.P. Whorf, M. Wahlen, and J. van der Plicht, 1995. Interannual
extrems in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature
375:666–670.
28. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 27.
29. Balling, Jr., R.C., 1995. Global warming: messy models, decent data, and
pointless policy. In, Bailery, R. (ed.), The True State of the Planet, The Free
Press, New York, pp. 83–107.
30. Lean, J., J. Beer, and R. Bradley, 1995. Reconstruction of solar irradiance
since 1610: Implications for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters
22(23):3,195–3,198.
31. Oard, M.J., 1990. An ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood. Institute for
Creation Research, Santee, California.
32. Oard, M.J., 2004. Frozen In Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the
Bible, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, pp. 71–74.
33. Fagan, B., 2000. The Little Ice Age: How climate Made History 1300–1850. Basic
Books, New York, NY.
34. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 27.
35. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 28.
36. Beisner, E.C., P.K. Driessen, R. McKitrick, and R.W. Spencer, 2006. A call to
truth, prudence, and protection of the poor: An evangelical response to global
warming, p. 10.
37. Ponte, L., 1976. The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We
Survive It? Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
38. Schneider, S.H., 1976. The Genesis strategy: Climate and Global Survival.
Plenum Press, New York, p. x.
39. Schneider, S.H., 1989 (Sept). The Changing Climate. Scientific American 261(3),
p. 77.
40. Lubick, N., 2006. Arctic amplification: the northern latitudes provide early
warning for global climate change. Geotimes 51 (3):30–33.
41. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 19.
42. Schneider, S.H., 2001. What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411:17–19.
43. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 30.
44. Hansen, J. and L. Nazarenko, 2004. Soot climate forcing via snow and ice
albedos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 101(2):423–428.
45. Mitchell, J.F.B., T.C. Johns, J.M. Gregory, and S.F.B. Tett, 1995. Climate
response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature
376:501–504.
46. Rosenfeld, D., 2006. Aerosols, clouds, and climate. Science 312:1,323–1,324.
47. Christy and Spencer, Ref 22, p. 20.
48. Beisner et al., Ref. 33, p. 6.
49. Christy and Spencer, Ref 22, p. 20.
50. Evans, M.N., 2006. The woods fill up with snow. Nature 440:1,120–1,121.
51. Evans, M.N., 2006. The woods fill up with snow. Nature 440:1,120–1,121.
52. Witze, A., 2006. Tempers flare at hurricane meeting. Nature 441:11.
53. Witze, A., 2006. Bad weather ahead. Nature 441:564–566.
54. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 21.
55. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, pp. 22–23.
56. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 16.
57. Beisner et al., Ref. 33, p. 13.
58. Beisner et al., Ref. 33, pp. 1-24. Also see
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/OpenLetter.pdf.
59. Beisner et al., Ref. 33, p. 13.
60. Hansen and Nazarenko, Ref. 41, p. 424.
61. Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005. Slowing of the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25°N. Nature 438:655–657.
62. Bryden, H.L., H.R. Longworth, and S.A. Cunningham, 2005. Slowing of the
Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25°N. Nature 438:655–657.
63. Wunsch, C., 2006. Abrupt climate change: An alternative view. Quaternary
Research 65:191–203.
64. Oard, M.J., 1997. The Weather Book. Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 70–71.
65. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 27.
66. Christy and Spencer, Ref. 22, p. 27.
How Much Global Warming Is Natural?
by Michael J. Oard on April 16, 2008
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
The concern over global warming seems to be escalating. But what do the data show?
Keywords: Global Warming, natural, solar irradiance, sunspots, Little Ice Age,
Medieval Warm Period, climate, aerosols, faculae, statistics
The concern over global warming seems to be escalating. We hear a steady media
drumbeat that man has caused practically all the global warming, and we need to act
now to avoid disaster. Al Gore seems to be the leader in all this hype with his
movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth.1 Although backing away from the sea level
rise that is supposed to occur by 2100 (one foot),2 the United-Nations-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) continued the drumbeat in its
latest 2007 report. The most widely read scientific journals Science and Nature
have an article on the effects and dangers of man-made global warming almost
weekly. Outlandish statements are rampant, such as: “A well-known environmental
spokesperson warns that future sea-level rise will drown much of creation.”3 A
woman even aborted her baby, saying that she was reducing her “carbon footprint.”
All these voices assume that practically all the 1.2°F global warming since 1880 is
caused by man, and only a tiny bit is natural. But other voices can be found in the
recent literature that conclude that natural processes are significant, especially
before 1980.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 In fact, many researchers believe that natural
process are predominant before 1980.
Natural Solar Irradiance
There are several natural processes that can affect global temperatures. One of
them is El Niño, a warming of the ocean water near the Pacific equator, which also
causes global warming of the atmosphere. It is responsible for the anomalous warm
year of 1998.
Then there are volcanic eruptions that spread sulfur aerosols (tiny particles about
the size of a micron or less) into the stratosphere, which reflect some of the
sunlight back to space, cooling the surface. Such aerosols slowly fall out of the
stratosphere and have been observed to cool the earth up to about one degree
Fahrenheit for a few years.
However, the most significant and long-lasting natural process is the change in
total solar irradiance (TSI) from the sun. I was taught in atmospheric science
classes in college that the sunlight is never changing. In fact, the amount of
sunshine at the top of the atmosphere was called the “solar constant.” However,
ever since satellites have been measuring solar radiation since 1978, we now
realize that the sunshine isn’t constant. It changes by a slight amount due to
sunspots and faculae that change with time on the sun’s surface. Sunspots are dark,
cool spots, while faculae are bright, hot spots—they usually occur together.12 The
net effect is that when there are many cooler sunspots, the hot faculae more than
make up for the cool spots. Thus, there is more solar radiation when there are more
sunspots.
Sunspots run in cycles. There is the familiar 11-year cycle. Then there is a 22-
year cycle, and there is a long period, chaotic cycle that lasts several hundred
years. During the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1300 to 1880, sunspots were
at a general minimum, suggesting that effects on the sun caused the Little Ice Age.
During this time, practically all the glaciers in the world advanced, and unusual
cold spawned a number of disasters. In fact, there were three periods during the
Little Ice Age when the number of sunspots was quite small compared to the average.
One of those is the Maunder Minimum, between 1645 to 1715, in which about 50
sunspots were detected during the entire period, while normally there should be
40,000 to 50,000 spots.13 This was one of the coldest periods of the Little Ice
Age.
2000 Years of Temperatures

Click to enlarge
Source: Global Warming Art
Before the Little Ice Age, there was the Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and
1300. This was the time when the Vikings colonized southwest Greenland, and records
indicate that good wine grapes were grown in southern England. Since sunspots have
been detected only since 1610, the evidence for the Medieval Warm Period relies on
carbon-14 in tree rings and beryllium-10 in ice cores. These proxies, as they are
called, which are generally good for the past one or two thousand years,14 indicate
that sunspot activity was very high during the Medieval Warm Period.15,16 This warm
period has sometimes been denied or minimized by advocates of man-made global
warming. So, if the sun can cause the dramatic effects of the Medieval Warm Period
and the Little Ice Age, when carbon dioxide was in steady state, then why can’t the
sun be causing a significant amount of global warming since the Little Ice Age?
More Recent Statistical Analysis
Sunspot numbers

Click to enlarge
Source: Global Warming Art
One of the main reasons why alarmists have minimized the effects of the sun on
climate is because the mechanism of how slight changes in TSI can warm or cool the
climate by a degree or two is poorly known.17 One promising recent hypothesis is
that when the number of sunspots is low, the sun’s magnetic field is weaker,
causing more cosmic rays to impinge on the Earth.18 More cosmic rays may cause more
cloudiness, which reflects more sunlight back to space cooling the earth’s surface.
Because of controversial hypotheses linking the sun to climate, researchers have
had to resort to statistical comparisons. Scafetta and West have led this research
over the past several years, showing statistically that the changes in TSI on the
sun are significantly correlated to global warming since 1900 and even before.17
Because global warming increased significantly from 1910 to about 1950,
proportional to the TSI, while carbon dioxide increased only a little, Scafetta and
West attribute 76% of the warming to natural causes on the sun!18 Then there was a
cooling period in the 1950s to 1970s, again proportional to TSI, but totally missed
by increasing carbon dioxide. Some readers may remember the books and magazine
articles that came out in the 1970s predicting the next ice age was due soon.
The period from 1980 to the present is questionable and controversial as to how
much of the strong rise in global warming was natural and how much was manmade.
Scafetta and West believe that only 25 to 35% of this warming is due to natural
causes while the rest is manmade.18 However, even this percentage is controversial
because there is more than one estimate of TSI. Scafetta and West use a compromise
TSI between a reconstruction that shows only a small change and one that shows a
large change in TSI since 1980. Alarmists seem to focus on the one that shows the
small change. For the twentieth century, Scafetta and West estimate natural causes
from the sun contributed 45 to 50% to the global warming.
Solar cycle data

Click to enlarge
Source: Global Warming Art
Scafetta and West have recently updated their figures and reported an even stronger
correlation between global warming and natural changes in sunlight.19 They show
that monthly global average temperatures correlate to the 11-year, 22-year, and
longer-term TSI cycle. Because sunspots are relatively low at present in the 11-
year cycle, the decreased sunlight is correlated to cooler temperatures since 2002:
“In particular, since 2002 the temperature data present a global cooling, not a
warming!”20 They conclude:
The non-equilibrium thermodynamic models we used suggest that the Sun is
influencing climate significantly more than the IPCC report claims. If climate is
as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological [statistical] findings
suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly
overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction
used.20
The reason that climate models and the IPCC have not picked up on the strong
influence of the sun on temperatures is because present-day climate models dismiss
the variability in monthly average global temperature as climate noise, and hence
ignore it. They also use the TSI that shows the lowest amount of solar irradiance
since 1980.
Natural processes are obviously affecting the surface temperature. I will stick
with my previous estimate of 50% natural and 50% manmade,21 since the figure of 69%
ever since about 1900 used by Scafetta and West is for a medium to high TSI
estimate for the past 25 to 30 years. If the low TSI is correct (Scafetta and West
think not) and manmade global warming has dominated during the past 25 to 30 years,
the century average would be around 50%, since natural processes on the sun
dominated before 1980.
What Does It All Mean?
What this means is that manmade global warming is only about 0.6°F, while the sun
contributed another 0.6°F. Man’s contribution is slight, and not enough manmade
warming has occurred to panic over. There is a good chance that man can do nothing
or only very little to change the manmade portion, even if he spent what alarmist
suggest to “fight” global warming (although we should always have been and should
continue to be good stewards of the resources God has provided us). We have plenty
of time for research.22 We can also learn to adapt by making changes, if global
warming continues its slow upward trend, such as building dikes for rising sea
level. (Some scientists are actually predicting global cooling in the future based
on trends on the sun, but this remains to be seen.) Spending hundreds of billions
of dollars a year to “fight” global warming just doesn’t make sense, and is more
likely to ruin the economies of first-world nations than make any significant
impact.
Footnotes
1. Gore, A., An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and
What We Can Do About It (New York: Rodale, 2006).
2. Lomborg, B., Cool It; The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), pp. 60–72.
3. Ruddiman, W., “Act now (but how?),” Science 319 (2008):285.
4. Crowley, T. J., and Kim, K.-Y., “Comparison of Proxy Records of Climate Change
and Solar Forcing, Geophysical Research Letters 23 no. 4 (1996):359–362.
5. Cliver, E. W., Boriakoff, V., and Feynman, J., “Solar Variability and Climate
Change: Geomagnetic AA Index and Global Surface Temperature,” Geophysical Research
Letters 25 no. 7 (1998):1,035–1,038.
6. Foukal, P., “A Comparison of Variable Solar Total and Ultraviolet Irradiance
Outputs in the 20th Century,” Geophysical Research Letters 29 no. 23 (2002):1–4.
7. Ammann, C. M., Meehl, G. A., Washington, W. M., and Zender, C. S., “A Monthly
and Latitudinally Varying Volcanic Forcing Dataset in Simulations of 20th Century
Climate,” Geophysical Research Letters 30 no. 12 (2003):1–4.
8. Meehl, G. A., Washington, W. M., Amman, C. M., Arblaster, J. M., Wigley, T. M.
L., and Tebaldi, C., “Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in
Twentieth-Century Climate,” Journal of Climate 17 no. 3 (2004):721–3, 727;
Scaffetta, N. and West, B. J., “Estimated Solar Contribution to the Global Surface
Warming Using the ACRIM TSI Satellite Composite,” Geophysical Research Letters 32,
L18713 (2005):1–4.
9. Usoskin, I. G., Schüssler, M, Solanki, S. K., and Mursula, K., “Solar Activity,
Cosmic Rays, and Earth’s Temperature: A Millennium-Scale Comparison,” Journal of
Geophysical Research 110, A10102 (2005):1–10.
10. Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., “Are
There Connections Between the Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate?” Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 253 (2007):328–339.
11. Lean, J., “Living with a Variable Sun,” Physics Today 58 no. 6 (2005):32-38.
12. RIAN, “Scientist Says Earth Could Soon Face New Ice Age,” Spero News,
www.speroforum.com.
13. Oard, M. J., The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland
and Antarctic Ice Sheets (Dallas: Institute for Creation Research, 2005).
14. Loehle, C., “A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-tree
Ring Proxies,” Energy and Environment 18 nos. 7 & 8 (2007):1,049–1,058.
15. Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J. H., “Correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature
Reconstruction Based on Non-tree Ring Proxies,” Energy and Environment 19 no. 1
(2008):93–100.
16. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J., “Phenomenological Reconstructions of the Solar
Signature in the Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Records Since 1600,”
Journal of Geophysical Research 112, D24S03 (2007):1–10.
17. Pasotti, J., “Daggers Are Drawn over Revived Cosmic Ray-Climate Link,” Science
319 (2008):144.
18. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J., “Phenomenological Solar Contribution to the 1900–
2000 Global Surface Warming,” Geophysical Research Letters 33, L05708 (2006):1–4.
19. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J., “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?”
Physics Today 61 no. 3 (2008):50–51.
20. Scafetta and West, Ref. 19 p. 51.
21. Oard, M. J., “Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far,” JOBSS, Answers in
Genesis website.
22. Oard, M. J. “Global Warming,” Answers, October–December 2006, pp. 24–26.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef under Threat from Climate Change
Is global warming to blame?
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on January 14, 2009
The rate at which the corals grow in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia has
declined recently. Is global warming to blame?
The rate at which corals extract calcium from seawater to build their hard
skeletons and thus grow has declined dramatically in the last 20 years, and signs
point to “man-made greenhouse gas emissions” as the culprit, according to a study
just published in the journal Science.1 Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is 1600
miles long and, thus, is the largest system of coral reefs in the world. It’s both
a world heritage area and an Australian “national treasure.”
Researchers with the Australian Institute of Marine Science near Townsville on
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef coast have looked at the growth records in the
skeletons of massive porites corals at 69 of the reefs that together make up the
Great Barrier Reef. Like trees, each year these corals grow a new band that is laid
down in their skeletons, recording details of the environment in which the
skeletons grew. Thus, these corals have been found to be some 400 years old, and
they show that the extraction of calcium from seawater to build their skeletons has
declined by 13% between 1990 and 2005. The researchers stated that these data
suggest such a severe and sudden decline in calcium extraction is unprecedented in
at least the past 400 years.
One reef expert has described these findings as very important and “frankly pretty
scary.”2 Slower growth might not seem like a big problem, says John Bruno, an
associate professor of marine ecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, but reef scientists are concerned that this will exacerbate the impacts of
other threats to coral reefs. For example, it will slow the vertical growth of
corals, making it harder for them to keep up with rising sea levels. It could also
slow recovery from other disturbances, such as coral bleaching episodes and
destructive storms.
So, what has caused this decline in the ability of these corals to grow? Sampling
the annual growth rings of these porites corals made it possible to compare
specific years to water temperature records and other data. Several potential
causes were ruled out by the researchers, among them sewage and other run-off,
since many samples were originally collected far from the coast. Disease is also
ruled out because the samples were all from corals that had been healthy. Thus, the
researchers concluded that the “two most likely” factors were warming sea
temperatures and more acidic oceans. Both these factors are tied to carbon dioxide
emissions. For example, as the carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere,
seawater is made more acidic. These researchers noted that their findings confirm
laboratory experiments and computer models predicting negative impacts on corals
from the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
For a number of years, Australian research scientists have been alarmed at the
growing threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, there have always been
natural calamities that have threatened these reefs, such as silt from the coastal
rivers that flood during the annual wet season. However, man’s activities are
adding to such threats. For example, sewage and other pollutants, as well as
fertilizers used in agriculture, are also swept onto the reefs by these annual
floods. The Great Barrier Reef saw severe bleaching in 1998 and 2002, the two
hottest summers on record. Such bleaching has been tied to warmer ocean waters and
happens because the organisms that live in the corals to create their colors are
expelled due to the warmer waters. Scientists have warned that the northern end of
the Great Barrier Reef could see severe bleaching again over the next few months
during the current Southern Hemisphere summer, as ocean water temperatures are
again warmer than normal.
So, should we be concerned about these threats to coral reefs, such as those in
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef? Absolutely! Corals create the physical structures
that thousands of other species depend on. They play a role analogous to trees that
create forests. When corals die, so do the fish and other animals that live on the
reefs. Loss of these reefs would be a devastating blow to one of the earth’s major
ecosystems (and, of course, my native country would lose a major tourist
attraction!).
However, can we do anything to change this doomsday outlook? Reef expert John Bruno
claims that we will almost certainly see this problem grow over the next few
centuries due to “greenhouse gas emissions.” Furthermore, we don’t know by how
much, or how quickly, corals can acclimate to this climate change.
Of course, we can only deal with those impacts due to human activities. For
example, the Australian government is currently taking action to reduce sewage and
other pollutants, including fertilizers, in the runoff from the coastal rivers that
impact the waters around the reefs. But can we deal with the rising carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere that are said to be the cause of warming sea temperatures
and the rising acidity of the ocean waters? Many experts claim that the increased
levels of carbon dioxide measured in the earth’s atmosphere are primarily due to
human activities. This has created a controversy over global warming and climate
change. But not all experts agree. There are now over 650 dissenting scientists who
are convinced that the global warming claims are all “hot air,” and that much of
the global warming has been due to natural causes. Note that this number of
dissenting scientists is more than 12 times the number of United Nations scientists
(52) who authored the media-hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC)
2007 Summary for Policymakers.3
Dissenters claim that if the major cause of global warming is natural, then it will
only be a matter of time before we enter a global cooling trend, as there is
evidence that many such warming and cooling cycles have occurred in the past, even
in the last century or two since detailed records have been kept. Nevertheless, we
fully agree that efforts should be made to reduce human impacts on our climate, as
there is no doubt that we need to conserve the major ecosystems like coral reefs,
which are not only attractive places to visit, but are also vital, nay crucial, to
the health of our planet. What we need, therefore, is a balanced view and a
balanced approach to the whole subject of climate change and global warming so that
we can more soberly balance the management, protection, conservation, and use of
the world’s natural resources for the ongoing benefit of mankind, as per the
dominion mandate we were given by God (Genesis 1:26–30). However, at the same time
it needs to be remembered that we are answerable to God for this stewardship over
His creation, as not even a sparrow falls to the ground without our Heavenly Father
knowing (Matthew 10:29).
Global Warming and Earth’s Design
by Wayne Spencer on June 16, 2010
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
Recent scandals, such as “climategate” and questionable practices of the Climate
Research Unit at East Anglia University, have raised new doubts about the
conclusions of climate scientists.
There has been much in the news about the issue of global warming. There are many
in the scientific community who believe that the warming trend in earth’s climate
has been caused by human beings by “greenhouse emissions” or “carbon emissions”
from man-made technology. The chief emissions of concern in this discussion are
carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Carbon dioxide is of more
interest because it is much more prevalent than methane or CFCs. Carbon dioxide is
given off by automobile engines and many factory processes where fossil fuels are
burned. Most of the mainstream media are saying that if humans do not reduce carbon
dioxide emissions there will be negative consequences for the world. The issue of
global warming has effectively escalated out of the scientific arena to the
political arena.
Recently there has been a growing scientific voice against the warnings of the
global warming community. Recent scandals, such as “climategate” and questionable
practices of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, have raised new
doubts about the conclusions of climate scientists.1 It seems that, similar to the
origins controversy, this is another issue where scientists have allowed their
personal biases to lead them off the line of truth. It has become similar to the
creation versus evolution issue in that there is so much emotional investment in
the global warming position not because of facts or the science, but because of
worldview assumptions and ideology. This was mentioned in a recent article in the
Arizona Republic, “The issue of global warming has stirred passions not unlike the
battle over evolution, similarly dragging scientists into the political arena to
defend their research.”2
The debate over climate change could have great practical ramifications because of
recent efforts to pass laws and international agreements regulating carbon
emissions. The trouble with this is that the strict recommendations for industry of
“cap and trade” type laws would have great cost to individuals and businesses.
Internationally, carbon regulation could put a burden on corporations and
governments that could actually cause suffering in some nations where resources
would be better spent feeding the poor and building economies. Cap and trade laws
have been implemented in some nations but have been resisted in others.
An open letter was presented to the United Nations in December 2007 by the
Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-Moon. This letter was presented at a U.N.
global climate conference and was signed by a significant list of individuals, most
of whom are scientists, some quite well known. This letter can be read on the
website of the National Post. Following is an extended quote from this letter:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued
increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced
carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant
photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2
emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification
for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In
particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global
climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because
attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2
reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather
than to decrease it.3
The letter also said, “We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to
the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth
generation.”3 In other words, implementing restrictive regulations against carbon
emissions would probably actually hinder corporations and governments around the
world from dealing with the real, basic needs of people. Note that Ban Ki Moon has
made many other more recent statements implying that mankind should indeed take
action to prevent global warming. He speaks out often for the cause of global
warming and works for international agreements to limit carbon emissions.
There may be real problems in various local regions that result from climate
changes, but those are the kind of issues human beings have always had to deal with
throughout history. Disaster preparedness is an issue human beings need to address,
but expecting to prevent natural disasters by restricting carbon dioxide emissions
is not realistic for many. Climate changes may affect animal life in some regions
as well, and there may be something human beings can and should do to help animals
that may be losing their habitat, but none of this is indicative necessarily that
there is a long-term global problem caused by human beings. Often animals can
relocate or adapt to minor climate changes.
Many have rightly questioned whether the cost of carbon regulations is even
warranted. New strict carbon emission standards are not likely to significantly
change earth’s global average temperature and are not needed for several reasons:
(1) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and should not be thought of as a pollutant,
(2) as a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide is not the most
significant greenhouse substance, and (3) the various natural processes that
determine earth’s long-term climate are designed by God to be self-regulating and
to prevent dangerous climate extremes (for example, water absorbs and transfers
heat in earth’s atmosphere and oceans).
Design of Earth’s Climate
The question of global warming and climate change is fundamentally about God’s
design of the earth. There has indeed been a warming of earth’s climate, though the
amount of warming is still debated. But the key questions are (1) could mankind be
to blame? (2) could any actions taken by mankind really make a difference? and (3)
will the climate change resolve itself without mankind’s help? First of all,
advocates of global warming being a serious problem treat carbon dioxide as if it
were a pollutant, but it really isn’t. Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of
earth’s atmosphere (about 0.04% of all atmospheric gases; methane and CFCs are much
less), although it is true that it is one of a number of “greenhouse gases.” A
greenhouse gas is a substance that allows light to transmit through the atmosphere
to the surface, but which absorbs radiant energy escaping back out through the
atmosphere. The overall process tends to convert mostly visible light from the sun
to infrared, which heats the atmosphere. Light is able to pass through the
atmosphere to earth’s surface, but the surface reradiates the energy at longer
wavelengths in the infrared that get absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. When the infrared is absorbed on its way out of the atmosphere, this
heats the atmosphere and affects our climate.
But, carbon dioxide is not the most important “greenhouse gas” in earth’s
atmosphere. The great majority of the greenhouse effect in earth’s atmosphere is
from water vapor. Water vapor often changes state from gas to liquid or to solid.
Its form and concentration also vary with humidity and cloud cover, thus its effect
on climate and weather is extremely complex. It is very difficult for scientists to
predict how water vapor might affect the temperature of earth’s atmosphere as a
whole. Predicting global climate from climate computer simulations, especially over
long periods of time, may be beyond what our methods are capable of at this time.
There are many types of effects that scientists do not know how to model accurately
in computer simulations, such as effects of different types of clouds, the presence
of snow and ice, ocean surface effects, etc.
Isaiah 45:18 in the Old Testament says that God made the earth “to be inhabited.”
In many origins issues scientists have often seriously underestimated the
complexity of life and the physical prerequisites for life. God has designed the
earth as a system with “checks and balances” which prevent climate from getting out
of control. There are many aspects to how the earth is designed to support life.
Orbital distance from the sun and the nature of the sun itself are important
factors that determine our climate, as well as earth’s tilt, but there are still
many other factors that affect earth’s climate. There are multiple interacting and
competing processes involved in what determines the climate we experience. If a
process tends to amplify the greenhouse heating effect, climate researchers refer
to it as a positive feedback. But if an earth process works opposite the greenhouse
heating effect and thus limits or moderates the heating, it is known as negative
feedback. Everyone learns even in elementary science that heat is transferred by
radiation, convection, and conduction. The greenhouse heating effect is heat
transfer by infrared radiation. If that were the only type of heat transfer in the
atmosphere, it would be so hot at earth’s surface that we may not be able to
survive except perhaps near the earth’s poles. Convection creates movements of air
that transport heat upward. Convection as well as prevailing wind currents even out
temperatures and limit how much the greenhouse effect can raise the temperature at
earth’s surface.
It is necessary to understand how water is so important to the climate we
experience. Water is an unusual substance with a high heat capacity and the
temperature and pressure in earth’s atmosphere are in just the right range to allow
many movements of water and changes in its state from liquid to gas, liquid to
solid, gas to liquid, etc. Thus water is able to circulate and move throughout
earth’s atmosphere and transfer heat in a number of ways. Some changes of state in
water happen in clouds, but clouds affect the greenhouse effect in multiple ways.
Clouds reflect sunlight, and so they can reduce the radiation making its way to the
surface (a negative feedback, cooling the atmosphere). They can also absorb
infrared radiation that comes from the surface, which can heat the atmosphere
(positive feedback). There are often multiple layers of clouds in the atmosphere at
different altitudes and these clouds interact with solar and infrared radiation
differently. So, clouds can produce either positive or negative feedback in
relation to the greenhouse effect.
There are also effects that complicate determining whether there are any long-term
changes in temperature. Thus some alarming predictions of rises in temperature made
by global warming advocates have not been measured in reality. There have been many
estimates of how increases in the amount of carbon dioxide will increase the global
average temperature. One researcher, Patrick Michaels, of the Cato Institute and
George Mason University, was involved in a study looking at how temperature
measurements were done in weather monitoring stations. They were examining whether
some of the evidence claimed to suggest global warming could actually be what’s
called “urban warming,” a well-known effect around major cities. They found that
temperature measurements were often associated with many socioeconomic indicators
around cities and temperature measurements are often done in inappropriate
locations that bias them toward higher temperatures. For example, a temperature
monitoring device may be located too close to a building, which tends to radiate
heat onto the monitoring device. Thus, because people tend to move from rural to
urban areas (true all over the world) and urban centers are warmer than surrounding
areas, coupled with the weather station measurement problems, this explains some of
the observed warming. Michaels and his colleagues concluded that global warming was
about half what had been previously estimated when these effects were taken into
account.4
There have been many computer simulations of the effects of increasing greenhouse
gases on earth’s climate. Some scientists are now challenging the results of
studies promoting the global warming agenda. According to Richard Lindzen, a well-
known climate scientist from MIT, some of these studies overestimate the heating
effect of carbon dioxide because they do not adequately account for other competing
processes, often related to water vapor, rain, and clouds. There has been an
increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere in recent years but this has
not made a significant change in temperature, and even doubling the amount of CO2
probably would only have a very trivial effect. Some researchers have estimated
that the amount of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere in the past has been as much as 20
times present amounts and thus any change in carbon emissions from human beings is
likely to have a very small effect. These estimates regarding past levels are
probably not very precise but it is reasonable that human emissions of greenhouse
gases would have only a trivial effect. Note that there are real changes over time
in the temperature in certain parts of the world, but earth is able to vary in
average temperature to some degree and life can usually adapt to it. There are
sometimes other processes that may be significant in some situations. NASA has
reported evidence that sulfur emissions and aerosols (produced from burning coal
and other human activities) may have a greater warming influence in Arctic regions
than carbon dioxide.5
Climate scientists today are finding that there are negative feedback effects that
limit how much greenhouse heating there could be due to gases like carbon dioxide.
In recent years climate researchers have studied something about earth’s clouds
that is known as the Iris Effect—a somewhat controversial idea proposed by Richard
Lindzen.6 Some researchers still dispute it, but some observations seem to confirm
it.7,8,9,10 The Iris Effect is the tendency of certain clouds to moderate how heat
is able to escape into space so that the temperature we experience at the surface
is prevented from becoming too extreme. Lindzen developed the idea from data based
on the tropics, looking at how the relative amounts of cirrus and cumulus clouds
are related to sea surface temperature. When it is very hot at the surface this
tends to drive high cirrus clouds to dissipate. Because earth has a transparent
atmosphere, this allows infrared radiation from near the surface to reach the upper
atmosphere and thus the energy escapes into space. But when it is cooler at the
surface, high-level cloud cover increases and this prevents the infrared radiation
from transferring heat out into space. This seems very much like a mechanism
tailored to what life on earth needs to survive.
This iris-type mechanism is not always possible on other planets and moons in our
solar system. Even if this mechanism did happen on other planets and moons it would
not have the same significance it has on earth. Venus, for example, has a very
thick atmosphere that is not transparent, thus heat cannot escape into space very
effectively. Venus’ atmosphere has thick clouds (made up of mainly sulfuric acid)
that never clear away and the greenhouse effect in Venus’ atmosphere is extreme
compared to earth, making it very hot. Mars’ atmosphere is transparent but it is
very thin and cold, and water is in the form of ice. On Mars there are limited
clouds from time to time; and there may even be an iris-type effect. But Martian
clouds would not be significant in moderating temperature. Saturn’s moon Titan has
an atmosphere even thicker than earth’s and has clouds that are likely to rain
methane and ethane. Titan’s lower atmosphere may be mostly transparent, but its
upper atmosphere is dominated by organic hazes (similar to smog). The hazes on
Titan never clear away and thus infrared energy cannot transfer heat out into
space. It is also extremely cold on Titan so any Iris Effect would not have much
effect on temperature. It seems that on all these worlds something like the Iris
Effect would be unlikely to moderate temperature significantly, but on earth the
Iris Effect is significant in helping maintain a livable climate for us. This
suggests God has designed the Iris Effect in earth’s clouds for our benefit.
The Limitations of Climate Science
Richard Lindzen (apparently not a creationist) has spoken out against mankind being
totally responsible for global warming. He indicates that today’s computer models
are very inadequate in their ability to handle water vapor in computer simulations.
Scientists sometimes just don’t know enough about the physics. Models are “tuned”
to give the desired results. Approximations and questionable assumptions are
programmed in to keep the simulation working and giving useful results. So there is
a tendency for some climate researchers to bias the simulations toward results that
show more warming than is realistic. The inability of the simulations to properly
deal with the effects of water vapor and clouds tends to lead to higher than
reasonable amounts of greenhouse warming. Dr. Lindzen makes the following
interesting statement about people being sometimes overly swayed by claims based on
computer simulations. “Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything
that emerges from a sufficiently large computer.”11 There are often such problems
with computer simulations in science, but the issue is honesty and realistic
reporting of the results of computer studies.
Doctor Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist in climate studies at the
University of Alabama–Huntsville. He has also been outspoken against mankind being
totally responsible for global warming. He was involved with a group of researchers
that looked into the iris effect and found empirical evidence confirming that it
was real and significant for climate. He wrote an article expressing his
frustration with the fact that the global warming idea now seems too ingrained for
people to listen to contrary evidence: “The fact is that so much money and effort
have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate
change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own)
depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the
Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.”12
There is probably not merely a single cause of long-term climate change, but one
very likely source of change is the sun, rather than human technology. The sun has
very complex magnetic fields that affect our weather. Sunspots are formed in
magnetic eruptions on the sun. The more sunspots, the stronger the sun’s magnetic
field is and the more it deflects galactic cosmic rays. Galactic cosmic rays are
charged particles that come from outside our solar system. These consist of a
variety of charged subatomic particles. There are also charged particles that come
from our sun. The charged particles from the galaxy and from the sun constantly
flow through our solar system and affect earth’s upper atmosphere and thus our
weather. Cosmic rays seem to be related to how much low-level cloud cover there is
through a complex series of particle effects in earth’s atmosphere. When there are
more frequent sunspots, the cosmic rays reaching earth are fewer. Fewer cosmic rays
mean less low-cloud formation, and this allows the ocean and lower atmosphere to be
warmed slightly. Thus, if the reverse occurs, the sun’s magnetic field being weaker
(fewer sunspots) leads to more intense cosmic rays penetrating earth’s atmosphere,
generating more low-cloud cover over the oceans and this cools the lower
atmosphere.
This is all relevant to the global warming issue, because the sun has recently been
in a period of intense magnetic activity known as a grand maxima. This grand maxima
has lasted from approximately 1940 to 2000. This maxima is likely to have caused
some slow warming of earth’s atmosphere. It has also been reported that in history
there have been times when solar activity was low where earth’s climate was colder
than average. Creationist atmospheric scientist Dr. Larry Vardiman has written
about this trend.13 Some related comments come from the journal Physics Today from
March 2008. Physics Today published an opinion letter from two researchers who did
some sophisticated statistical analyses of solar fluctuations and related them to
earth’s climate. One of these researchers is from the Duke University Physics
department and the other is from the U.S. Army Research Office. They argue there is
a link between changes in earth’s climate and changes in the sun. They speak of the
“complexity of the earth being linked to the complexity of the Sun.”14 In the same
article they conclude that “the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in earth’s average temperature . . . .” Since 2008 there has been an
ongoing debate about this research.
Some scientists are now arguing that the sun has moved into a period of less
activity, and this could start a period of cooling for us on earth. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the winter months from December
2007 through February 2008 were the coolest months since 2001 for the United States
and for the globe.15 Though these winter months were relatively warm in some U.S.
states, this was more than made up for by the cold temperatures and extensive
winter precipitation in other parts of the U.S. Another very recent study by
researchers from the University of Reading in Britain have showed a connection
between low solar activity and cold winters in England over 351 years of
temperature measurement data.16
In conclusion, we can be thankful for how God has designed the earth with “checks
and balances” that maintain a livable climate for us. Earth’s climate is designed
to be able to compensate for and even cancel out various climate effects. Earth’s
atmosphere, the abundance of water on earth, and even the nature of the sun are all
factors in what determine the temperatures we experience. We are stewards of the
earth, but we must understand our planet’s climate realistically in the light of
God’s design.
Global Warming’s Solar Connection
The Science
by Dr. Jason Lisle on July 1, 2010
Featured in Answers Magazine
Based on typical news reports, you would assume that the cause of global warming is
obvious—coal and burning gasoline. But we should look closer at a more obvious
source of fluctuation. What about the sun?
Many people today are worried that global warming is threatening life on earth.
They often blame pollution from modern industry, which is increasing the amount of
certain atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, that trap heat. Some individuals
have gone so far as to say that we must take immediate action to halt global
warming to prevent catastrophic consequences within the next century. What are we
to make of such claims?
Warming Is Real
First, there is evidence that global warming is indeed happening. Virtually all the
glaciers in the world have receded in the last century. Measurements indicate that
the earth’s global average temperature has gone up 1.2°F (0.7°C) since 1880. This
really isn’t very much of a change, and there is some reason to believe that even
that number may be inflated.1 In any case, there is good reason to believe that the
earth has warmed in the last century, if only slightly.
Is Carbon Dioxide a Bad Thing?
In addition, we know that industry releases certain gases into the atmosphere, and
many of these gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, tend to reflect infrared
radiation. This means that they trap heat and warm the earth much the way a
greenhouse does—hence the term the “greenhouse effect.” Theoretically, an increase
in the abundance of these greenhouse gases will trap more heat, leading to an
increase in the earth’s temperature. In reality, it’s far more complicated than
this.2 Let’s consider a few important facts.
First, we should note that the greenhouse effect is a very good thing. Without this
effect the earth’s temperature would be significantly lower (perhaps a difference
of 60°F [33°C]), which would make human life nearly impossible. Greenhouse gases
are a natural component of the atmosphere and are vital for human life. Moreover,
carbon dioxide is essential for plant biology.
Second, carbon dioxide and other gases that are put into the atmosphere by industry
are only minor contributions to the greenhouse effect. Contrary to popular belief,
water vapor is far more significant to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Some have estimated that water vapor is responsible for as much as 95% of
greenhouse warming.3
Third, changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not always correlate well with
changes in the earth’s temperature. For example, the earth’s temperature rose
substantially from 1910 to 1940, yet the carbon dioxide levels rose only slightly.4
Conversely, the global temperature has been falling since 2002, even though carbon
dioxide levels continue to rise. There were substantial changes in climate in the
ninth and seventeenth centuries, and yet these certainly cannot be due to carbon
dioxide produced by industry.
The Sun’s Role
We must understand that the most important natural factor in determining the
earth’s temperature is the sun. We take for granted that the sun is stable and
warms the earth in a uniform way.
For the most part, it does; it is an unusually stable star. But the sun does have
natural cycles and minor changes in intensity that affect climate on the earth. One
such cycle is the relatively short-term sunspot cycle. However, much longer
variations may also exist. There is evidence that such variations have a
substantial effect on earth’s climate.
Sunspots are small,5 darker regions on the sun’s visible surface. There the solar
material is substantially cooler than its surroundings, so it does not glow as
brightly. The number of spots on the sun is highly variable. Sometimes the sun has
more than fifty spots on its visible surface. At other times it has none. This is
because the sunspot number is cyclic, changing from very few to many with a period
of 11 years. This 11-year period is now known to be half of the sun’s 22-year
magnetic cycle. (The sun is like a big magnet that reverses its polarity every 11
years, and so returns to its original polarity every 22 years.)
Sunspots do seem to correlate significantly with climate on earth. When sunspot
activity is high, the regions surrounding the spots form small bright points called
faculae.
Since the faculae are bright, they slightly overcompensate for the dimming effect
of the spots, which causes the overall intensity of the sun to be higher than it
would be without sunspots. So we would expect earth’s temperatures to be higher
when sunspot activity is high—and this is indeed what we find.6
In addition to the 22-year cycle, sunspots also undergo variations on a much larger
timescale. These correlate very well with temperatures on earth. For example,
sunspot activity was very low during the period roughly spanning 1645–1715. This
period of reduced sunspot activity is called the Maunder Minimum. It corresponds
well with the period of colder temperatures experienced in Europe, known as the
“Little Ice Age.”
A similar though less severe period of low sunspot activity, known as the Dalton
Minimum, occurred during the period 1790–1830. It also coincided with reduced
temperatures. Conversely, the Medieval Warm Period (AD ~1000) seems to correspond
with a period of high sunspot activity.7 In addition, sunspot activity has been on
the decline in the last decade, and we have been experiencing global cooling since
2002.
These correlations imply that long-term variations in solar activity have much more
to do with global climate change than human activity. Furthermore, they also
suggest that global warming is not a runaway effect on earth, contrary to what
ecological extremists and their political allies would have us believe. Rather, the
earth has long-term natural variations. It may be that the cooling trend we are now
seeing marks the beginning of the downward part of the cycle, in which case we
should expect to see slightly cooler temperatures over the next several decades. In
any case, it seems that the claims of the global warming alarmists are unwarranted.
Yes, the Christian does have an obligation to care for God’s creation. We must take
this seriously. At the same time, we must recognize that the earth and sun do go
through natural cycles, and have been doing so for some time (Genesis 1:14–18).
Although the relationship between solar activity and earth’s climate may be only
partially understood, it is clear that modern industry was not responsible for the
Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. These periods of climate change were
temporary and did not result in catastrophic destruction; they remind us that we
can rely on the stability that God has placed in the natural world.
Indeed, God has promised that the cycles of nature will continue in the future as
long as the world remains (Genesis 8:22).
A Look at the Numbers
Identifying the cause of global warming is very complex. Changes in carbon dioxide
(CO2) do not correlate well with temperature changes. But changes in the sun’s
activity do appear to correlate with major climate changes over the past few
centuries.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CO2
Several gases trap heat on earth. The main “greenhouse gas” is water vapor, but
carbon dioxide (CO2) also has this effect. Increases in CO2 levels are now blamed
for rising temperatures. But look closely at the graph below. If the CO2 level has
increased steadily, why did the earth experience two periods of falling
temperatures (after 1900 and after 1940)? Is there a better explanation for
temperature change?
Significance of Carbon Dioxide Chart

SIGNIFICANCE OF CO2 CHART: Global temperature: National Climatic Data Center CO2
measurements: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUN
Rising and falling temperature is not a new problem. Consider the past 1,000 years,
especially the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Clearly the fossil
fuel industry had nothing to do with these changes.
Another factor that may help explain temperature changes is the sun. The sun’s
intensity goes through cycles not yet fully understood. The number of sunspots, for
example, varies over a 22-year cycle, as the sun reverses magnetism. High sunspot
activity is associated with higher temperatures on earth.
Sunspots also undergo variations on a much larger timescale. For example, sunspot
activity was very low during the period 1645–1715, at the depth of the Little Ice
Age. In contrast, sunspot activity was high during the Medieval Warm Period.
Significance of the Sun Chart

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUN CHART: Derived from Moberg et al. Nature, 2005
Footnotes
1. Michael Oard, The New Answers Book 3, chapter 7, p. 77.
2. The effect of greenhouse gases is nonlinear. This means that doubling the amount
of a greenhouse gas does not necessarily double the greenhouse effect.
Additionally, some greenhouse contributors actually have an overall cooling effect.
For example, clouds do trap heat and are considered a contributor to the greenhouse
effect. (This is why cloudy winter nights are usually warmer than clear winter
nights.) But during the day, clouds reflect sunlight, which prevents solar energy
from reaching the surface of the earth. This latter effect more than compensates
for the former. So the net effect of clouds is that they actually reduce the
earth’s temperature. The effect is also highly dependent on altitude.
3. P. J. Michaels and R. C. Balling, Jr., “The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air
about Global Warming” (Washington D. C.: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 2.
4. See figure 2 at http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-
warming/
5. The sun is over 100 times larger than earth in diameter. Sunspots are only about
the size of earth.
6. Higher solar intensity (associated with large numbers of sunspots) seems to
produce more warming on earth than would be expected on the basis of theoretical
calculations. There seems to be some secondary effect that is not yet understood.
7. In this case, sunspot number is estimated by proxy (using substitutions that are
thought to correlate with sunspot number, such as the Beryllium-10 concentration in
ice cores), since direct measurements are not available from this time.
Global Warming’s Solar Connection
The Science
by Dr. Jason Lisle on July 1, 2010
Featured in Answers Magazine
Based on typical news reports, you would assume that the cause of global warming is
obvious—coal and burning gasoline. But we should look closer at a more obvious
source of fluctuation. What about the sun?
Many people today are worried that global warming is threatening life on earth.
They often blame pollution from modern industry, which is increasing the amount of
certain atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, that trap heat. Some individuals
have gone so far as to say that we must take immediate action to halt global
warming to prevent catastrophic consequences within the next century. What are we
to make of such claims?
Warming Is Real
First, there is evidence that global warming is indeed happening. Virtually all the
glaciers in the world have receded in the last century. Measurements indicate that
the earth’s global average temperature has gone up 1.2°F (0.7°C) since 1880. This
really isn’t very much of a change, and there is some reason to believe that even
that number may be inflated.1 In any case, there is good reason to believe that the
earth has warmed in the last century, if only slightly.
Is Carbon Dioxide a Bad Thing?
In addition, we know that industry releases certain gases into the atmosphere, and
many of these gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, tend to reflect infrared
radiation. This means that they trap heat and warm the earth much the way a
greenhouse does—hence the term the “greenhouse effect.” Theoretically, an increase
in the abundance of these greenhouse gases will trap more heat, leading to an
increase in the earth’s temperature. In reality, it’s far more complicated than
this.2 Let’s consider a few important facts.
First, we should note that the greenhouse effect is a very good thing. Without this
effect the earth’s temperature would be significantly lower (perhaps a difference
of 60°F [33°C]), which would make human life nearly impossible. Greenhouse gases
are a natural component of the atmosphere and are vital for human life. Moreover,
carbon dioxide is essential for plant biology.
Second, carbon dioxide and other gases that are put into the atmosphere by industry
are only minor contributions to the greenhouse effect. Contrary to popular belief,
water vapor is far more significant to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Some have estimated that water vapor is responsible for as much as 95% of
greenhouse warming.3
Third, changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide do not always correlate well with
changes in the earth’s temperature. For example, the earth’s temperature rose
substantially from 1910 to 1940, yet the carbon dioxide levels rose only slightly.4
Conversely, the global temperature has been falling since 2002, even though carbon
dioxide levels continue to rise. There were substantial changes in climate in the
ninth and seventeenth centuries, and yet these certainly cannot be due to carbon
dioxide produced by industry.
The Sun’s Role
We must understand that the most important natural factor in determining the
earth’s temperature is the sun. We take for granted that the sun is stable and
warms the earth in a uniform way.
For the most part, it does; it is an unusually stable star. But the sun does have
natural cycles and minor changes in intensity that affect climate on the earth. One
such cycle is the relatively short-term sunspot cycle. However, much longer
variations may also exist. There is evidence that such variations have a
substantial effect on earth’s climate.
Sunspots are small,5 darker regions on the sun’s visible surface. There the solar
material is substantially cooler than its surroundings, so it does not glow as
brightly. The number of spots on the sun is highly variable. Sometimes the sun has
more than fifty spots on its visible surface. At other times it has none. This is
because the sunspot number is cyclic, changing from very few to many with a period
of 11 years. This 11-year period is now known to be half of the sun’s 22-year
magnetic cycle. (The sun is like a big magnet that reverses its polarity every 11
years, and so returns to its original polarity every 22 years.)
Sunspots do seem to correlate significantly with climate on earth. When sunspot
activity is high, the regions surrounding the spots form small bright points called
faculae.
Since the faculae are bright, they slightly overcompensate for the dimming effect
of the spots, which causes the overall intensity of the sun to be higher than it
would be without sunspots. So we would expect earth’s temperatures to be higher
when sunspot activity is high—and this is indeed what we find.6
In addition to the 22-year cycle, sunspots also undergo variations on a much larger
timescale. These correlate very well with temperatures on earth. For example,
sunspot activity was very low during the period roughly spanning 1645–1715. This
period of reduced sunspot activity is called the Maunder Minimum. It corresponds
well with the period of colder temperatures experienced in Europe, known as the
“Little Ice Age.”
A similar though less severe period of low sunspot activity, known as the Dalton
Minimum, occurred during the period 1790–1830. It also coincided with reduced
temperatures. Conversely, the Medieval Warm Period (AD ~1000) seems to correspond
with a period of high sunspot activity.7 In addition, sunspot activity has been on
the decline in the last decade, and we have been experiencing global cooling since
2002.
These correlations imply that long-term variations in solar activity have much more
to do with global climate change than human activity. Furthermore, they also
suggest that global warming is not a runaway effect on earth, contrary to what
ecological extremists and their political allies would have us believe. Rather, the
earth has long-term natural variations. It may be that the cooling trend we are now
seeing marks the beginning of the downward part of the cycle, in which case we
should expect to see slightly cooler temperatures over the next several decades. In
any case, it seems that the claims of the global warming alarmists are unwarranted.
Yes, the Christian does have an obligation to care for God’s creation. We must take
this seriously. At the same time, we must recognize that the earth and sun do go
through natural cycles, and have been doing so for some time (Genesis 1:14–18).
Although the relationship between solar activity and earth’s climate may be only
partially understood, it is clear that modern industry was not responsible for the
Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. These periods of climate change were
temporary and did not result in catastrophic destruction; they remind us that we
can rely on the stability that God has placed in the natural world.
Indeed, God has promised that the cycles of nature will continue in the future as
long as the world remains (Genesis 8:22).
A Look at the Numbers
Identifying the cause of global warming is very complex. Changes in carbon dioxide
(CO2) do not correlate well with temperature changes. But changes in the sun’s
activity do appear to correlate with major climate changes over the past few
centuries.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CO2
Several gases trap heat on earth. The main “greenhouse gas” is water vapor, but
carbon dioxide (CO2) also has this effect. Increases in CO2 levels are now blamed
for rising temperatures. But look closely at the graph below. If the CO2 level has
increased steadily, why did the earth experience two periods of falling
temperatures (after 1900 and after 1940)? Is there a better explanation for
temperature change?
Significance of Carbon Dioxide Chart
SIGNIFICANCE OF CO2 CHART: Global temperature: National Climatic Data Center CO2
measurements: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUN
Rising and falling temperature is not a new problem. Consider the past 1,000 years,
especially the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Clearly the fossil
fuel industry had nothing to do with these changes.
Another factor that may help explain temperature changes is the sun. The sun’s
intensity goes through cycles not yet fully understood. The number of sunspots, for
example, varies over a 22-year cycle, as the sun reverses magnetism. High sunspot
activity is associated with higher temperatures on earth.
Sunspots also undergo variations on a much larger timescale. For example, sunspot
activity was very low during the period 1645–1715, at the depth of the Little Ice
Age. In contrast, sunspot activity was high during the Medieval Warm Period.
Significance of the Sun Chart

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUN CHART: Derived from Moberg et al. Nature, 2005
Footnotes
1. Michael Oard, The New Answers Book 3, chapter 7, p. 77.
2. The effect of greenhouse gases is nonlinear. This means that doubling the amount
of a greenhouse gas does not necessarily double the greenhouse effect.
Additionally, some greenhouse contributors actually have an overall cooling effect.
For example, clouds do trap heat and are considered a contributor to the greenhouse
effect. (This is why cloudy winter nights are usually warmer than clear winter
nights.) But during the day, clouds reflect sunlight, which prevents solar energy
from reaching the surface of the earth. This latter effect more than compensates
for the former. So the net effect of clouds is that they actually reduce the
earth’s temperature. The effect is also highly dependent on altitude.
3. P. J. Michaels and R. C. Balling, Jr., “The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air
about Global Warming” (Washington D. C.: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 2.
4. See figure 2 at http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-
warming/
5. The sun is over 100 times larger than earth in diameter. Sunspots are only about
the size of earth.
6. Higher solar intensity (associated with large numbers of sunspots) seems to
produce more warming on earth than would be expected on the basis of theoretical
calculations. There seems to be some secondary effect that is not yet understood.
7. In this case, sunspot number is estimated by proxy (using substitutions that are
thought to correlate with sunspot number, such as the Beryllium-10 concentration in
ice cores), since direct measurements are not available from this time.
Burned by Global Warming
Perspective
on January 1, 2012
Featured in Answers Magazine
The editor of the scientific journal Remote Sensing recently stepped down. His
crime? Publishing a paper that raises questions about anthropogenic (human-caused)
global warming. The paper, coauthored by renowned climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer,
reveals that many climate models include inflated temperatures because they
misrepresent the role of clouds.
Amid a raging controversy, the journal’s editor, Wolfgang Wagner, stepped down,
admitting his “regret.” In part because of the public outcry and pressure, Wagner
now says the paper was “flawed” and he should not have published it.1
For their part, the authors of the paper stand by their claims. Dr. Spencer points
out, “The editor never contacted me to get my side of the issue. He apparently only
sought out the opinions of those who probably could not coherently state what our
paper claimed, and why.”2
As this situation reveals, the debate over global warming—as with all of science—
has a great deal to do with worldviews and biases. Dissenting voices often get
drowned out for the sake of what is “politically correct.”
Global Warming—Normal in an Abnormal World
The Biblical Worldview
by Ken Ham on July 1, 2010; last featured April 22, 2012
Featured in Answers Magazine
The Bible is the foundation for understanding every challenge facing us. Global
warming is no exception. A careful study of climate history in God’s Word helps us
understand how God expects us to respond to fears of radical climate change.
Editor’s note:
The Birth of Earth Day
On this Earth Day, April 22, 2012, as people are being reminded not to abuse the
environment, Christians should be recalling Genesis 1 and its admonition to be
stewards of the world. But Earth Day is much more than advocating for things like
clean air and water. From its very beginning, Earth Day has been a platform from
which activists have been proclaiming a particular worldview-driven agenda. For
many extreme environmentalists, they will not be sitting in church today but will
be “worshipping” Mother Earth.
On our website today, Ken Ham, AiG president, shares his perspectives on Earth Day.
In a recent Answers radio commentary, he indicated that even at Earth Day’s start
40 years ago, it already had an agenda well beyond simply being good stewards of
the earth. Listen to the :90 program, labeled “Earth Day—a Hidden Agenda” at this
link.
Ken Ham wrote the following article two years ago for Answers magazine that
presented a balanced view of global warming, which is now the number one cause
today for environmental activists.
________________

We live in an abnormal world because the once-perfect creation is now affected by

sin and the Curse: “For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with
birth pangs together until now” (Romans 8:22).
Whether a person is a Christian or non-Christian, a creationist or evolutionist,
all believe in various (even dramatic) times of climate change over the earth’s
history.
However, there are disagreements—not over the fact of climate change, but over
other questions:
a. When did the change(s) occur?
b. What type of change(s) occurred and to what extent?
c. What caused the change(s)?
d. Can humans do anything to stop or reverse the effects of such climate change?
Today scientists and politicians heatedly debate man’s role in climate change (d,
above). But if their starting assumptions about (a), (b), and (c) are wrong, there
is a very real danger that they will make very bad decisions. The problem is
especially acute if they assume that climate has changed slowly over millions of
years until man’s recent appearance on earth (especially modern industry)
dramatically sped up the change.
As a biblical creationist, let me give a big-picture overview of climate change
based on earth’s history as revealed in God’s Word. I postulate that the earth’s
climate has gone through four major periods of change, and a fifth change is
coming. In every case, humans did not produce the change directly.
Original Creation: Perfect Harmony
God created a perfect world in six days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:11). This took
place about six thousand years ago.
On the fourth day of the Creation Week, we read: “Then God said, ‘Let there be
lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let
them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years’ ” (Genesis 1:14). Now, the
primary reason for today’s four seasons is the earth’s tilt as it revolves around
the sun. Assuming the earth had a similar tilt when created, such seasonal changes
would have occurred from the beginning.
Although the word for “seasons” in Genesis 1 encompasses various special times,
such as harvest and festivals, it can also include the periods we call seasons
today (summer, fall, winter, spring). Presumably, had the earth remained in its
perfect state, there still would have been the four seasons, but regular and in
perfect harmony, with no extremes that would cause harm to life or the earth.
First Change: Groaning Creation
However, the situation did not remain perfect because the first man, Adam, rebelled
against the Creator, resulting in all of creation suffering from the effects of sin
and the Curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20–22).
The Bible does not reveal much about the world before Noah’s Flood. We don’t know
to what extent the climate was affected. No doubt changes did occur since our
Creator God no longer upheld the world in a perfect state.
Second Change: Global Flood
The most significant climate change recorded in the Bible occurred during the time
of Noah (and we could postulate this to be the second climate period in biblical
history).
The fountains of the deep burst forth, and the windows of heaven opened to pour
rain on the earth (Genesis 7:11). Such a dramatic, global Flood would not only
revolutionize the earth’s climate at that time but also have an ongoing effect on
the climate ever since. New mountain ranges (Psalm 104:8–9) and the rearrangement
of the continents, for example, would result in different weather patterns.
Those who reject the reality of the global Flood will never understand most of the
conditions that produced the major climate changes in the past and their influence
upon the present.
Even though Noah’s Flood dramatically changed the earth’s climate, at the end of
the Flood God made a promise to future generations: “While the earth remains,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not
cease” (Genesis 8:22). Nothing that happens to the climate, and nothing man can do,
will change this. God’s promise will remain true (see Jeremiah 33:20–21).
So, regardless of what climate change occurs, day and night and seasons will
continue until the final judgment.
Third Change: Cooling Earth
The next major climate change occurred over the next few hundred years as a result
of the Flood of Noah’s day: “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of
heaven, who gives it birth?” (Job 38:29).
Biblical creationists believe the unique conditions of the Flood generated earth’s
one and only Ice Age. (At the end of the Flood, cool land, warm water, and ash in
the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions caused a cooling effect— for details see “A
Dark and Stormy World,” Answers, Oct.–Dec. 2008.) Creation scientists estimate that
this Ice Age peaked around 500 years after the Flood.
Fourth Change: Warming Earth
After the Ice Age peaked and as the earth began to settle down from the devastating
effects of the Flood, the earth began to warm, and the Ice Age receded. The melting
ice caused the ocean level to rise. The oceans eventually reached a relatively
stable temperature so that climate fluctuations became less severe.
We currently live in a period of relatively minor fluctuation (see temperature
changes over the past thousand years on p. 55).
Ever since the Flood, we have seen an unsettled earth in its sin-cursed state. Many
smaller climate changes have occurred, such as seven years of drought and famine in
Joseph’s day.
Other authors in this magazine issue consider whether mankind has contributed
significantly to climate change—though a proper understanding of the evidence does
not favor such a suggestion.
Even if mankind’s impact on climate is small, this does not mean that we should not
look after our environment. To the contrary, we need to do the best we can to use
the environment for man’s good and God’s glory, as stewards of what God has
entrusted to us. Good stewardship requires us to avoid rash decisions based on
inconclusive evidence.
Final Change
A fifth period of major climate change is coming—the final and most dramatic
change: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the
heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent
heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2 Peter
3:10).
After this time Christians will live in new heavens and a new earth that will
remain perfect forever (2 Peter 3:13). No more will climate hurt the earth and
life, for the Lord will again uphold the earth in a perfect state (Revelation 21:4;
22:3).
Those who reject the Bible cannot truly understand how climate change fits into the
real history of the earth, including the biblical timeline over six thousand years
and God’s judgment during the Flood. Climate change is normal in an abnormal world.
Until people are prepared to accept why this world is abnormal—because of sin—they
will not be able to properly understand climate change and respond appropriately.
Disagreements on Climate Change
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 2, 2012
Featured in News to Know
Scientifically literate people can disagree about the causes and cures of climate
change, study finds.
News Source
* ScienceNews: “Climate Skepticism Not Rooted in Science Illiteracy”
A new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change dispels the notion that
people who disbelieve currently popular ideas about climate change are
scientifically illiterate. On the contrary, ScienceNews reports, “High science
literacy actually boosts the likelihood that certain people will challenge what
constitutes credible climate science.” The researchers attribute people’s
propensity to see climate change as an unsettled issue to “cultural factors such as
attitudes toward commerce, government regulation and individualism.” They find that
these cultural factors affect “what people accept as truth.”
“Simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public
conflict” about climate, Yale Law School’s Dan Kahan writes.
Kahan’s team surveyed 1,540 American adults to assess scientific literacy,
political ideas about the role of government in the economy, and personality.
People were classified as either more individualistic or more egalitarian in
outlook, and this factor was the primary determinant of the position people took on
climate change issues. “People with high degrees of individualism tended to have
attitudes that were pro-industry and skeptical of risks,” they found. Egalitarians
“tended to be morally ambivalent towards markets because they think that’s what
causes social disparities,” Kahan says, and were therefore willing to see higher
levels of regulation as necessary in the face of risks to society.
These findings will likely affect the strategy of policy makers as well as
educators. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) recently took up the
banner for the politically correct view of climate change. NCSE director Eugenie
Scott recognized that “people are very emotionally concerned” and if they “feel
threatened ideologically, politically or economically, ‘all the science in the
world won’t convince them.’” NCSE opposes “teaching the controversy,” as we pointed
out in our analysis of the recent debate in Tennessee regarding legal protection
for public school teachers wishing to critically analyze controversial issues,
including climate change.
There is a lot of controversy, not over climate change itself, as everyone agrees
climate changes, but over the cause of such changes, specifically whether man has
contributed significantly to such changes.
As Dr. Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in
Australia, has pointed out, the debate over climate change is far from a settled
issue even among secular scientists. He said, “There is a lot of controversy, not
over climate change itself, as everyone agrees climate changes, but over the cause
of such changes, specifically whether man has contributed significantly to such
changes. I am personally aware of several secular professional scientific societies
whose memberships are very divided on this issue, and the continuing debate is
heated. Therefore to assert there is no controversy over climate change is utterly
deceitful. Students should be told the truth about this debate among professional
scientists.”
By demonstrating that political and economic philosophy affect the views of
scientifically literate people, this study supports our contention that holding a
politically incorrect worldview does not prove a person is unwilling or unable to
understand science. As scientists seek answers requiring knowledge of the
untestable past—whether of origins, age of the earth, or history of the global
climate—assumptions must be made. Those assumptions are inevitably influenced by
worldview. Thus, not only do political opinions about the appropriateness of
regulatory measures influence the way scientifically literate people view the
evidence, so do presuppositions about global history.
Many theologically conservative Christians—as well as many secular scientists—are
uncomfortable with the politically correct version of the man-made global warming
crisis. The impact of global warming initiatives on the welfare of people is also a
concern to many who simply want to be sure decisions are based on sound scientific
reasoning and not emotional overkill. As Bible-believing Christians we see the
“dominion mandate” of Genesis 1:28 as a call for a balanced, responsible view of
environmental stewardship.
Global Warming—When Politics and Science Collide
The Politics
by George Taylor on July 1, 2010; last featured February 3, 2013
Featured in Answers Magazine
The global warming debate would not be so heated if it were simply a question of
science. Since one side blames mankind for the crisis, they demand immediate action
to avoid imminent disaster. With so much at stake, it’s no surprise that science
gets drowned out by politics.
We can scarcely pick up a newspaper without reading about “global warming” or
“climate change” and how it affects us. Often the dire warnings are followed by a
list of “solutions to the climate problem”—things we must do to minimize climate
change. These solutions would require immense costs and dramatic changes to areas
that affect our everyday lives, including transportation, energy, and agriculture.
Since it is widely known that climate varies naturally and has done so over
thousands of years, the current controversy focuses on the effects of recent human
activities. We call this “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW). While this is
primarily a scientific issue, the addition of politics and economics has created an
explosive mixture.
First, a Glance at the Science
Climate science is extremely complex because climate change involves every aspect
of the “geophysical system” on or around the earth, as well as the sun, moon, and
other outside agents. To understand climate change, we must recognize four basic
earth systems:
* Atmosphere—especially the troposphere, where weather happens
* Hydrosphere—oceans, lakes, rivers, and so on
* Biosphere—plants and animals
* Cryosphere—frozen ground, especially in high elevations and high latitudes.
Changes in Any of These Can Influence Climate
Much of the controversy involves the atmosphere’s “greenhouse effect,” which traps
heat on the earth. As explained in “Global Warming’s Solar Connection,” pp. 53–55,
the greenhouse effect is a good thing, and the most important greenhouse gas is
water vapor, which is almost entirely of natural origin. The next most important
gases are carbon dioxide and methane. Both are largely natural, but certain human
activities can increase their concentrations. For example, driving vehicles
releases carbon dioxide, and manure on farms can release methane.
And this is where “anthropogenic global warming” comes in. All else being equal, if
the amount of greenhouse gases changes, climate will change. The questions we need
to ask are “by how much?” and “how do we measure this?” We can look to careful
scientific observations to give us clues, as well as climate simulation models.
Observations of Climate Changes over the Past 1,000 Years—Reliable climate
observations go back several hundred years. Earlier estimates of temperature,
precipitation, and other parameters are made using “proxy” data—geophysical and
biological indicators that “imply” climate. Examples of these include tree rings,
lake sediments, and ice cores. The assumptions appear reasonable and indicate an
interesting pattern over the last thousand years (see figure in “Global Warming’s
Solar Connection”).
From about A.D. 1000 to 1400 temperatures were comparable to what they are today,
but they dipped during a period known as the “Little Ice Age,” marked by crop
failures and significant storms. After rising slowly, temperatures dropped again
from about 1940 until the mid-1970s. In the last 10 years, temperatures have gone
down slightly.
If carbon dioxide were primarily responsible for temperature change, as some people
suggest, we would expect a steady rise in temperatures over the last 70 years.
Instead, we see two periods of declining temperatures bracketing a brief period of
rise.
Unreliability of Existing Climate Models—Climate models are simulations of the
atmosphere, mathematical constructs intended to simulate the fundamental processes
and estimate the effects of changes. These are similar to the models used to
predict short-term weather changes. But models are good only if they can be
validated by observations.
In its first and most significant global warming report, the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) looked at the most current models and claimed that there is
“clear evidence” for AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
Yet the Science and Environmental Policy Project (www.sepp.org), a watchdog group
founded by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, took a closer look at the details
and reached a far different conclusion:
“The report shows a clear disagreement between models and observations in the
tropical region, which is the most sensitive for model validation. . . . A more
careful and more detailed examination of this [AGW] issue reveals that the
disparity between observations and models is real and significant; it suggests that
a major part of current warming is due to natural causes and that the human
component due to greenhouse gases is only minor. It also suggests that the computer
models cannot be considered as having been validated by observations.”
How can climate scientists look at the same data and reach opposite conclusions?
Clearly more is involved than “pure science.” Scientists on both sides recognize
that the ramifications will affect every one of us.
The Controversy
The key controversy seems to be “Do human activities significantly affect climate?”
The key controversy seems to be “do human activities significantly affect climate?”
If so, changing those activities (for example, reducing our output of greenhouse
gases) would have a measurable effect on climate. On the other hand, if human
impacts are insignificant, controlling human emissions will have a negligible
effect.
Those in the former camp (significant human impacts) suggest sweeping changes in
energy use, transportation, and other activities. Most of these would entail huge
costs. Those of the “insignificant human impact” persuasion suggest that such
changes would entail “all pain and no gain”—huge expense with little measurable
effect.
The Politics
The human role in global warming has gotten deeply immersed in politics. Since
politics involves making decisions that govern other people’s lives, it’s critical
to base these decisions on solid information.
One major problem exists: while climate science is filled with approximations and
uncertainties due to the complexity of the climate system, politics typically
requires simple “yes/no” answers. On the climate issue, many scientists are very
polarized. Some believe that the human impact is significant and requires rapid and
significant action to “control” it; others believe that the human impact is minor,
and that humans can no more “control” climate than they can volcanoes.
While there is a moderate middle ground on this issue, the extreme positions have
tended to dominate the conversations. Instead of acknowledging the uncertainties,
politicians are tempted to claim certainty about climate change. Even if we
understood the causes fully (and we don’t), scientists aren’t equipped to answer
the next two important questions: (1) will changes in human activity change
climate, and (2) what actions should governments take?
Science can help explain what is but not what should be. That is a moral question
about right and wrong, good and bad, which is based on moral convictions. Such
questions lie outside the scope of science.
One well-known politician leads the pack of those who make human-caused global
warming their rallying cry: former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. He has spent the
last 15 years sounding the alarm. His documentary film An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
won an Academy Award, and in 2007 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his
efforts.
Gore believes his cause is so important that “over-representation” of the facts is
justified: “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-
representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for
opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Grist interview, May
9, 2006).
Despite such rhetoric and call to action, the public appears to be growing less
concerned about the seriousness of global warming (in part because temperatures
have declined over the last decade and because the dissenting scientific view has
achieved more widespread awareness). According to a Gallup poll of Americans in
March 2010, for example, “48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of
global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when
Gallup first asked the question.”
New revelations about shoddy—and even deceptive—reports from leading scientists
have thrown cold water on the debate.
When Politics and Science Mix—Climategate
In November 2009 thousands of private emails and other documents were made public
that put climate-science politics in a bad light. The “Climategate” incident
continues to reverberate, revealing what appear to be willful acts to suppress
dissenting views, restrict publication of dissenting material, and otherwise
control the discussion of AGW.
The documents embarrassed the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of
East Anglia, which had been instrumental in analyzing global temperature changes
and sounding the alarm about mankind’s role in global warming. An initial
investigation by a committee of the House of Commons cited “a culture of
withholding information—from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global
warming,” when the unit was asked to disclose information under the Freedom of
Information Act.1
Climategate has called into question the activities of many scientists and
organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
UN-based group that oversees international climate activities. In 2007 this group
received the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate
greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and to lay the foundations for the
measures that are needed to counteract such change.” Perhaps that prize was
undeserved.
Bottom Line
But I haven’t told you my opinion. I have been involved in weather and climate for
nearly forty years. I have studied climate change and have arrived at several
conclusions:
a. Human activities affect climate in various ways. Greenhouse gases are just one
parameter.
b. Natural variations affect climate. I believe that these variations have been
more significant influences on climate because they do a much better job of
explaining observed variations in climate.
c. Effects of future changes in carbon dioxide are likely to be modest.
d. Many aspects of climate remain poorly understood. We learn new things about
climate all the time.
If the “facts” change, I reserve the right to change my mind. But talk of
overhauling society is unwarranted. Such major decisions should not be left to
scientists or politicians anyway. If this is a moral issue—and stewardship of the
earth’s resources is a moral issue—then the appropriate response is to turn to the
Creator and His Word for wisdom, including the careful fulfilling of our human
responsibilities to God’s glory.
Climate Change: the Watershed Issue for Two Davids
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on February 16, 2013
Featured in News to Know
A few years back BBC television viewers could enjoy both David Attenborough and
David Bellamy bringing wildlife and plants into their homes.
News Source
* The Telegraph: “David Bellamy Tells of Moment He Was ‘Frozen Out’ of BBC”
* Telegraph: “BBC Backs Down on David Attenborough’s Climate Change Statistics”
Both were (and are) extremely environmentally conscious spokesmen for conservation
of earth’s resources. And both men are gifted with the ability to engage their
audience and make their subject matter interesting and vital. But Bellamy says the
BBC dropped him suddenly in 2004 after he expressed his opinion that the scientific
consensus about global warming was “poppycock.”
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
What of Bellamy? Soon after the BBC dropped him, he was ousted as president of the
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. Nevertheless, he has continued to promote
preservation, both of the environment for its own sake and for the sake of people
who depend on it. He says he advocates a common sense approach, citing how a boy
he’d encountered in botanically rich Sierra Leone died of malnutrition. “He died
because we [humans] had gone in there and dug up the diamonds and chopped down the
habitat,” Bellamy says.1
The tide may be turning just a bit, though, at least for Bellamy’s fortunes if not
for the dominion of the popular and politically correct version of the climate
change story. Bellamy just received an invitation from the Duke of Edinburgh to
speak at Buckingham Palace next month in the inaugural David Bellamy Lecture. Who
knows, if Prince Philip gives him a platform, perhaps the BBC will let him back on
the air?
For the last 16 years, temperatures have been going down and the carbon dioxide has
been going up and the crops have got greener and grow quicker.
“I still say it’s poppycock,” Bellamy says. “For the last 16 years, temperatures
have been going down and the carbon dioxide has been going up and the crops have
got greener and grow quicker. We’ve done plenty to smash up the planet, but there’s
been no global warming caused by man. If you believe it, fine. But I don’t and
there’s thousands like me.” Incidentally, the UK National Weather Service,
according to The Telegraph, has downgraded its forecast regarding global warming to
say that by 2017 global temperatures will have been about the same for two decades.
The BBC just backed off of a claim made by Attenborough in last week’s final
episode of its Africa series that “some parts of the [African] continent have
become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years.” After a storm of protests questioning the
scientific evidence of the claim, the BBC agreed the evidence is disputable and
played loud music to drown out that portion of the program during its re-broadcast
a few days later. Evidence actually indicates that since 1850 global temperatures
have risen about 0.8C, they report, and the script for Attenborough’s program used
a poorly documented and rather outlandish figure. The BBC said its own production
team was responsible, not Attenborough.
It is unfortunate when a popular and gifted teacher—and that’s really what TV
personalities like Bellamy and Attenborough are whether one agrees with their
various positions or not—are thrust out because of a non-mainstream opinion on
issues like climate change. In essence, we see the same thing in American public
schools when the academic freedom of teachers to even mention the controversial
“scientific weaknesses” about climate change requires protection from equally
controversial laws. We’ve written before about the Tennessee Teacher Protection
Academic Freedom Act and Louisiana’s Science Education Act. Both of these laws and
others like them have generated controversy not only because they allow scientific
weaknesses of evolutionary dogma to be discussed but also the issues surrounding
global warming.
Dr. Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in
Australia, has pointed out that the debate over climate change is far from a
settled issue even among secular scientists. He says, “There is a lot of
controversy, not over climate change itself, as everyone agrees climate changes,
but over the cause of such changes, specifically whether man has contributed
significantly to such changes. I am personally aware of several secular
professional scientific societies whose memberships are very divided on this issue,
and the continuing debate is heated.”
Neither educational programming nor schools should arbitrarily screen out the
critical analysis of such “minority” opinions on issues like these just because
they are unpopular. Keeping the media and the schools politically correct is no way
to build critical thinking skills in either children or adult TV viewers.
As Dr. Snelling points out, the questions about climate change are not so much
whether it is occurring but whether man is the cause of it. Unfortunately, some of
those who contend vehemently that climate change represents a manmade crisis base
their views on unverifiable ideas about the untestable past. The answers for how
best to responsibly care for the earth God gave us (Genesis 1) will not be found by
silencing and ignoring those who disagree with the majority about complex
scientific issues.
Global Cooling?
Perspective
on July 1, 2013
Featured in Answers Magazine
Some proponents of catastrophic global warming are finally admitting that the
actual global temperature is not rising as fast as their models predict. In fact,
data published recently by the British Met Office may actually indicate the
beginning of a cooling trend. The official global temperatures published by the Met
Office appear to be dropping out of the range predicted with 90% confidence by
computer climate models.
Piers Forster, climate change professor at Leeds University, notes, “Global surface
temperatures haven't risen in the past fifteen years. . . . [They] make the high
estimates unlikely.” Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology
agrees that “[climate] models are running too hot” and says the “current flat trend
may continue for two more decades.”
Most of the scientists who believe the earth is heating up at catastrophic rates
believe the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activity is the
primary cause of increasing global temperature for the past half century. According
to creation meteorologist Dr. Larry Vardiman, “They have not considered some of the
long-term changes in solar activity as a possible explanation for this divergence
from their predictions.”
For years, some creation scientists who specialize in climate have maintained that
global warming is driven by cyclical solar effects that the Creator apparently put
in place. Over the past five years, Dr. Vardiman has been predicting that the
global temperature should have started declining sometime after 2000, based on
complex statistical studies of the Central England Temperature (CET) records and
solar activity.* Such data appear to confirm those predictions, although the
downturn has taken longer than predicted to begin.
The British Met Office has now released strong evidence for this global cooling
trend.
Based on observations of the solar effects that drive global temperature, Dr.
Vardiman and others believe temperatures should continue to decline for several
decades to come.
Unfortunately, Western governments have invested so much capital and reputation
into the carbon dioxide theory that they are unlikely to give up on it anytime
soon. This seems to be another sad case where people who reject the Bible’s
revelation are chasing costly errors. If only they would recognize that we live on
a young earth that has undergone radical climate changes as a result of the Flood,
they would spend their efforts more wisely on understanding climate problems and
solving them!
These climate variations should not surprise us or cause undue alarm. We know that
God is holding the earth together until the day of His final judgment, and nothing
can destroy it until He dissolves it Himself.
*http://www.icr.org/article/new-evidence-for-global-cooling/
See also http://www.icr.org/article/will-solar-inactivity-lead-global-cooling/
Climate Change Predictions Prove Miscalculated
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on April 13, 2013
Featured in News to Know
Climate change predictions in the news have been proven to be inaccurate.
News Source
* National Geographic: “Climate Change Skeptics Seize on Reports Showing
Temperatures Leveling”
The Daily Mail, Der Spiegel, the Telegraph, and the Economist have all reported in
recent weeks that our collective goose is not cooking as precipitously as
predicted. Headlines about the past decade’s significant shortfall of world surface
warming have further fueled the fires of climate change controversy. The Daily
Mail, for instance, titled its headline: “The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof
that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were
WRONG all along.”1
FREE Bible Guide
Quick Answers to Common Questions about the Bible.
DOWNLOAD NOW
Because many mainstream scientists and political entities are convinced that global
warming is the result of man’s activities, the response to the presumed crisis has
had major economic impact around the world. Restructuring of industry and mandated
alterations to consumer goods to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases—the
alleged culprits in manmade global warming scenarios—has cost consumers and
governments a great deal of money. U.S. President Obama’s proposed 2014 budget
alone proposes a 6% increase in spending to research climate change (up to $2.65
billion) in addition to money designated for regulatory functions.2
Those skeptical of the magnitude and significance of climate change hasten to point
out that only eleven years before the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) was created to sound the alarm about global warming, policy
makers and mainstream scientists of 1977 feared we were entering a new ice age,
warning of food shortages and erratic weather related to global cooling. Now, a
graph based on the IPCC’s computer modeling shows that the earth really isn’t
warming up as predicted. Leeds University climate change professor Piers Forster
notes, “Global surface temperatures have not risen in 15 years. They make the high
estimates unlikely.”3 And David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
says, “This changes everything. Global warming should no longer be the main
determinant of economic or energy policy.”3
chart

This graph of actual average world temperature (black) compared to computer models
(orange) shows that for the past decade the temperature has not been rising.
Skeptics point out that the nice correlation to the left of the vertical white line
is a result of the fact that the model was constructed retrospectively, after those
temperatures were recorded, and therefore naturally corresponds. The graph is based
on data from United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Image leaked from the IPCC, via The Daily Mail.3
Other experts say this plateau is just a brief respite in a catastrophic trend.
They note that ten years is only a short time, much too short to declare a winner
in the debate. Nevertheless, the contempt with which politically correct doomsayers
have treated those who are skeptical about the severity and man-made origin of
global warming does seem to justify some rejoicing as they hear mainstream experts
like Oxford University geoscientist Myles Allen say the catastrophic estimates are
“looking iffy.”4 Demonized atmospheric carbon dioxide may really not be the cause
of all our woes.
The shortfall in degrees does give a little breathing room, perhaps for scientists
on both sides of the controversy to acknowledge the enormous complexity of the
questions—how much global warming should we expect, what will be its significance,
and is it within man’s power to restrain?
Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, which opposes the conventional view, says, “In the
peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global
temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water
vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming
together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your
SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet.”
Elgie Holstein of the Environmental Defense Fund, however, denies that the lull is
a surprise and says, “This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first
place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature
has leveled, really doesn't tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures
may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before.”
Dr. Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in
Australia, notes that the debate over climate change is far from a settled issue.
He says, “There is a lot of controversy, not over climate change itself, as
everyone agrees climate changes, but over the cause of such changes, specifically
whether man has contributed significantly to such changes. I am personally aware of
several secular professional scientific societies whose memberships are very
divided on this issue, and the continuing debate is heated.”
We are, according to Genesis 1, responsible to care for the earth God created. More
research is clearly needed on this important subject. Unfortunately, some who
contend that climate change is a man-made problem base their views on unverifiable
ideas about the untestable past. Neither speculation about the past nor a shouting
match dominated by politically correct views should dominate the ongoing
investigation. Perhaps this “respite” in rising temperatures will serve as a
reminder of the importance of keeping discussion open for all quarters.
Further Reading
* Climate Change: the Watershed Issue for Two Davids
* Global Warming
* How Much Global Warming Is Natural?
* Christian Reluctance to Jump on Global Warming Bandwagon Attributed to Skepticism
of Evolution
* Resisting the Green Dragon
* Eugenie Scott Focuses on Climate (the green dragon’s new advocate)
* A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming
* Human-Caused Global Warming Slight So Far
* Creation and Conservation
* The “Greenness” of God
* Global Warming (video)
* The Teacher Protection Academic Freedom Act
* Is There a Dominion Mandate?
For More Information: Get Answers
________________

Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know
about it! (Note: if the story originates from the Associated Press, FOX News,
MSNBC, the New York Times, or another major national media outlet, we will most
likely have already heard about it.) And thanks to all of our readers who have
submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch all the latest News to Know,
why not take a look to see what you’ve missed?
Footnotes
1. David Rose, “The Great Green Con No. 1: The Hard Proof that Finally Shows Global
Warming orecasts that Are Costing You Billions Were WRONG All Along,” The Daily
Mail, March 16, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-
green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-
WRONG-along.html.
2. Science News Staff, “Obama's 2014 Science Budget: Research Gets Some Help, and
Hurt,” Science, April 12, 2013, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/obamas-2014-
science-budget-research-gets-some-help-and-hurt.
3. David Rose, “The Great Green Con No. 1: The Hard Proof that Finally Shows Global
Warming orecasts that Are Costing You Billions Were WRONG All Along,” The Daily
Mail, March 16, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-
green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-
WRONG-along.html.
4. Ibid.
Are We Globally Warming Our World to Death?
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on September 30, 2013
Featured in Answers in Depth

Abstract
The United Nations has spoken, declaring that it’s our fault. Global warming, that
is.
News Source
* ABC: “IPCC Climate Report: Humans ‘Dominant Cause’ of Warming”
“The heat is on; we must act,”1 declares United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon, commenting on the policymakers’ guidelines just released by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s latest report
disregards scientific claims to the contrary and says that global warming is real,
worsening, and dangerous. The panel further concludes that it is 95% certain “that
human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-
20th century”2 and therefore the cause of a looming disaster.
Climate Change or Global Warming or . . . ?
For a while now, it has become more popular—and accurate—to refer to climate
change, for gloom-and-doom predictions about global cooking have not come true. In
fact, some scientists have even noted evidence of global cooling.3 But the United
Nations panel now says the 15 year pause in warming has been insignificant, too
short to reflect any long-term trends or to have predictive value. So back to
global warming it is.
In their 36-page report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis “Summary
for Policymakers,” the IPCC writes, “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will
cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting
climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions.”4 In fact, they say the problem is so bad that “A large fraction of
anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a
multi-century to millennial time scale,”5 adding, “It is virtually certain that
global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100, with sea level rise due to
thermal expansion to continue for many centuries” (emphasis theirs).6
The IPCC predicts that even the most draconian emission restrictions cannot stop
the sea level from rising by 40 centimeters (15 ¾ inches) by 2100.7 With the UN-
sponsored panel’s demands that policymakers worldwide take aggressive action to
stem the tide, we can anticipate with at least 95% certainty that those policies—
whether they affect the climate or not—will affect the lives of countless people.
Qin Dahe, co-chairman of the group that produced the report, said, “Our assessment
of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow
and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and that concentrations
of greenhouse gases have increased.” Thomas Stocker, another co-chairman, warned
that climate change is our enemy, challenging “the two primary resources of humans
and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only home.”
How does the IPCC explain the seemingly favorable non-warming trend since 1988?
They cite the short-term heat associated with El Niño, manifest at the beginning of
the trend, and indicate that short-term change has thus obscured the bigger
picture.
The report indicates that the warming of the oceans is the dominant reservoir for
heat in earth’s overall climate, responsible for a 90% increase in accumulated
energy from 1971 to 2010. Pessimistic about the future, the report predicts, “The
global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate
from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.”8 And it concludes
that the surface temperature of the earth will rise more that 1.5º Celsius by the
end of the 21st century compared to 1850.
Established by the United Nations to objectively evaluate climate risk, the IPCC
consists of 12 full-time staff and a volunteer staff of scientists. Every six years
the IPCC issues a “Summary for Policymakers.” The 2013 report declares
unprecedented confidence in its predictive value and demands aggressive worldwide
action. Despite the official UN call for neutrality on the issue, Rajendra Pachauri
leads the group with an aggressive posture reflecting his own green activist bias
as a contributor to Greenpeace materials and recipient of the International
Advertising Association’s “green crusader” award.9
Pachauri, chairman since 2002, says the IPCC relies only on peer-reviewed material,
but examination of the 2007 report revealed reliance on many popular if not dubious
sources, resulting in the panel’s famous declaration that the Himalayan glaciers
could disappear by 2035, a claim based on a 2005 World Wildlife Fund publication—
not exactly a peer-reviewed source!10 Though a Nature editorial in 2010 dubbed the
IPCC “the gold standard for independent scientific assessment,” other experts are
more skeptical of the IPCC’s objectivity and neutrality. For instance, a 2010
review by a committee of the multinational InterAcademy Council of scientific
academies found “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s
assessment process.”11
Nevertheless, we can be sure that governments worldwide will continue to invest
mountains of money and reams of regulations and restrictions in order to toe the
line and not be seen to buck the word of the IPCC.
A Call for Diligence
Are there foundational assumptions that could call into question their conclusions—
either about the seriousness of the problem or the manmade contribution to it?
As Christian Bible-believers, we are fully aware of our responsibility to be good
stewards of the world God our Creator has given us. We furthermore understand, as
our Lord commanded and demonstrated that we should love our neighbors, we would not
want to discourage policies that could potentially affect the well-being of
countless people. Therefore, it is incumbent on us as responsible individuals to
carefully consider these claims.
But on what are the IPCC’s claims based? Are there foundational assumptions at work
here that could call into question their conclusions—either about the seriousness
of the problem or the manmade contribution to it? Are informed scientists even as
unified in their assessment of manmade climate change as doomsayers indicate? Will
the policies demanded by the IPCC help fix the problem? And could those policies
have dire and possibly unnecessary consequences for economies and cultures
worldwide?
Later this week this website will treat our readers to a preview of Dr. Alan
White’s The New Answers Book 4 chapter “Climate Change Facts: Should We Be
Concerned?” Dr. White holds a PhD in organic chemistry from Harvard University,
worked as a Research Fellow for Eastman Chemical Company, holds 41 US patents, and
has authored 18 peer-reviewed scientific papers. He now travels internationally
lecturing on both the biblical and scientific aspects of climate change and global
warming.
Climate change is not just short-term change but a change in global climate
patterns. There is good evidence that global temperatures have risen somewhat for
about 400 years and had trended downward before that time, Dr. White notes. But to
what can we attribute these trends? The man-made contribution to the world’s total
CO2 is actually a fairly low percentage. Are manmade emissions of greenhouse gases
really the cause of current climate change, and would restricting those emissions
worldwide fix the problem, if there is one? Or are these changes in climate part of
the normal variation we should expect as passengers on planet earth?
The IPCC does note the paucity of data available to assess some aspects of the
climate change question. Co-chairman Stocker said, “I'm afraid there is not a lot
of public literature that allows us to delve deeper at the required depth of this
emerging scientific question. For example, there are not sufficient observations of
the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean, that would be one of the
possible mechanisms to explain this warming hiatus. Likewise we have insufficient
data to adequately assess the forcing over the last 10-15 years to establish a
relationship between the causes of the warming.”
Thus Stocker agrees that scientists really do not have all the information they
need to draw reliable conclusions. Yet the IPCC is 95% certain that “warming of the
climate system is unequivocal,”12 that human behavior has created a mess, and that
worldwide changes in emissions and our carbon footprints can fix it.
Dr. Alan White points out in his discussion that the sorts of measurements needed
to make the determinations even about so seemingly simple a question as the global
surface temperature are not easy to come by. And, he writes, “When there is a lack
of good data and when people view the data from two very different perspectives, it
is easy to have disagreement.” Thus, questions about the scope, causes,
consequences, and “cure” for climate change are not as straightforward as the IPCC
and many sincerely concerned scientists and citizens of the world would insist.
Responding to the IPCC report, Dr. White says:
The latest report from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has
just been issued. These reports happen every five or six years and are the latest
thinking from this panel of experts. This time the IPCC is even more convinced that
humans are the cause of most of the increase in global temperature over the past 60
years despite the fact that their models did not predict the relatively stable
global temperature over the past 15 years.
It is not surprising that these mathematical climate models are not very accurate
at this stage because our understanding of the earth’s highly complex climate is
naïve. Remember, we have had good global temperature data for only a very few
years.
Could the present apparent rise in temperature worldwide be ordinary and expected
variation? History suggests previous times of global warming occurred. A millennium
ago Vikings were able to farm in Greenland, but global cooling ended that a few
centuries back. History suggests times of warmer climate with associated high
levels of European agricultural production in the Middle Ages. Could world
temperatures be simply returning to previous highs?
Answering these questions requires information about the earth’s past and not just
the temperature of the Thames! Measuring the temperature of the earth’s surface and
bodies of water is difficult even in the present. The paucity of accurate and
comprehensive data from the past further limits the raw material available to model
accurate predictions. But reliable predications also depend on an understanding of
the forces that historically set the climate patterns we see today in motion. We
need to look a bit further back in history—not millions of years—but just a few
thousand years. The global Flood created conditions that triggered the Ice Age, the
only one13 earth has ever experienced. How much of what we are seeing in earth’s
climate today could be related to the global Flood and the Ice Age?
Be sure to return to this website Friday for an in-depth discussion of these and
many more aspects of the global warming issue. Dr. White’s chapter from the The New
Answers Book 4—“Climate Change Facts: Should We Be Concerned?”—offers a different
perspective on climate change. Whatever position a Christian citizen chooses to
take, he or she needs to understand the present in the true light of biblically
documented, scientifically affirmed history rather than uniformitarian assumptions
about the earth’s past—and future.
Footnotes
1. Richard A. Kerr, “Climate Panel: Even Greater Confidence of Looming Warming,”
Science, September 27, 2013, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/09/climate-panel-
even-greater-confidence-looming-warming.
2. Ibid.
3. Danny Choy, “Global Cooling: Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year [NASA
PHOTO],” International Science Times, September 11, 2013,
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-
60-photo.htm; and Larry Vardiman, “New Evidence for Global Cooling,” Acts & Facts
39, no. 7 (2010): 12–13, http://www.icr.org/article/new-evidence-for-global-
cooling/.
4. Lisa Alexander et al., “Summary for Policymakers,” Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, September 27, 2013,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/27_09_13_ipccsummary.pdf.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Kerr, “Climate Panel: Even Greater Confidence of Looming Warming.”
8. Alexander et al., “Summary for Policymakers.”
9. Donna Laframboise, “Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report,” The Wall
Street Journal, September 24, 2013,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323981304579079030750537994
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Multiple ice ages are postulated by those who believe in billions-of-years, but
all but one are the product of a number of unverifiable assumptions. See Frozen in
Time, The Multiplication of Ice Age Theories.
13. Kerr, “Climate Panel: Even Greater Confidence of Looming Warming.”
14. Chapter 6
The Multiplication of Ice Age Theories
by Michael J. Oard on October 1, 2004
Featured in Frozen in Time
Researchers have generated a lot of theories to explain the mysteries surrounding
the mammoths, but questions about the cause of the Ice Age have also spawned a
multitude of ideas. Ice Age theories can be divided into two general groups. One
group is extraterrestrial — something happened in our solar system or the Milky Way
galaxy or even on the sun to start an Ice Age. The second group of theories is
terrestrial. They propose that something in Earth’s complex climate changed to
start an Ice Age.
Extraterrestrial theories
Not until the mid 1800s did the scientific world finally accept that an Ice Age
actually occurred. At that time, the cause of the Ice Age was first ascribed to a
loss of light from the sun. The temperature of the earth is controlled by the
amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. Differences in sunlight cause the cold
polar and warm tropical regions. These differences in temperature power the earth’s
wind system and storm movements. The theory goes that if the power of the sun could
somehow be reduced, temperatures in the higher latitudes would drop and lead to an
Ice Age.
However, no one knows whether the amount of sunlight changed in the past. No one
was around to observe such a change, and observations are necessary for an idea to
be verified as a scientific theory. It is true that the intensity of the sun does
change a little, depending upon the number of sunspots, but the change is very
small. As far as anyone knows, the sun has maintained a nearly constant intensity
throughout Earth’s history. In meteorological jargon the assumed reliability of the
solar output is called the solar constant.
Even if there were less sunlight in the past, it would not necessarily lead to an
Ice Age. Colder temperatures are less able to hold water vapor. Therefore, the
amount of rain or snow would be reduced, not increased.
Other scientists have proposed that the solar system moved through a dust cloud to
cause an Ice Age. They suggest that perhaps this dust cloud was a dirty arm of the
Milky Way galaxy. The dust between the sun and earth would block out some of the
sun’s rays and lead to a buildup of ice. Unfortunately, this theory also suffers
from a lack of evidence and also does not provide for the copious amount of snow
needed to produce an Ice Age.
Terrestrial theories
Many scientists today are concerned about the buildup of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere since more carbon dioxide brings a greenhouse effect. Increased carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation from the earth, heating
the lower atmosphere. Conversely, if there were less carbon dioxide in the past,
the climate would become cooler. Scientists believe there was about 30 percent less
carbon dioxide during the Ice Age than there was at the start of the industrial
revolution. This is based on measurements of carbon dioxide trapped in small air
bubbles in the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets.
Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have increased substantially more than
carbon dioxide, but they have a weaker effect on greenhouse warming. It is
convenient to consider these other greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide, so
scientists have transposed these other greenhouse gases into carbon dioxide
equivalents. The net effect of these other greenhouse gases is similar to
increasing carbon dioxide another 30 percent. Thus, “greenhouse” gases have
increased 60 percent since the industrial revolution. However, this has produced at
most only a 1°F (0.6°C) global temperature rise. It is likely that part of this
warming was not caused by the increase in greenhouse gases but due to other
causes,1 but let us assume it was. Reducing carbon dioxide by 30 percent during an
Ice Age would probably produce a less than one-degree drop in temperature —
definitely not enough to start an Ice Age.
Mountain building can be used to explain the cold climate of an area. It is
possible mountain building could have initiated an ice sheet. It is well known that
as a person ascends a mountain, the temperature cools. It is also well known that
mountains receive much more rain and snow than the adjacent valleys. So, as the
theory goes, if the land were higher, the temperatures would be colder and the
snowfall greater.
However, although the mountainous regions of North America, Europe, and Asia today
are high, they have very few glaciers, and they do not have an ice sheet covering
them. Another problem is that the ice sheet in North America developed over the low
areas of northeast Canada. Another glitch is that the altitude of the land in the
United States from North Dakota to Maine is not very high. So postulating that
mountain building in the past caused an Ice Age does not help at all. Besides, the
high mountains are still with us, and there are no ice sheets covering northern
North America, Europe, and Asia.
Another ingenious Ice Age theory is that if the sea ice melted over the Arctic
Ocean, the increased evaporation would provide the needed high latitude moisture.
Due to the snow and ice buildup, the climate would then cool and the Arctic Ocean
would refreeze and reverse the buildup of ice. The cycle would continuously repeat
itself. This theory provides an explanation for the many ice ages that scientists
claim took place in the past 2.5 million years of geological time.2
The theory has merit in that it focuses on the necessary moisture that most
theories neglect. It is likely, however, that the added moisture would be
insufficient to begin an Ice Age. It is true that increased evaporation from an
iceless Arctic Ocean would provide more snow in northern Canada and Eurasia.
However, the heat transmitted to the atmosphere from the water during the winter
would most likely keep the continents too warm during the summer for snow and ice
to build up. The theory fails to account for the tremendous summer cooling required
for an Ice Age. Moreover, no one mentions how the Arctic Ocean ice could have
melted, or whether there is any evidence of it having happened in the recent past.
In the standard view, the ice on the Arctic Ocean has not melted for at least the
past supposed million years of geological time.
Figure 6.1

Figure 6.1. Volcanic dust and aerosols reflect sunlight back to space, cooling the
land.
Other theories involve increasing volcanic dust, trapped in the upper atmosphere,
blocking some of the sunshine and, therefore, causing cooler temperatures and an
Ice Age (figure 6.1). This theory also has merit because volcanic dust and gases do
bring cooler temperatures. The problem is that each supposed ice age lasts 100,000
years. Volcanic dust and gases, on the other hand, fall out of the stratosphere in
one to several years. An inordinate amount of volcanism would be required to
sustain cold summer temperatures throughout such a long ice age.
One desperate theory has the West Antarctic ice sheet slipping from its undersea
moorings and out into the deep ocean. As it floats around in the southern ocean,
more sunlight reflects back into space and cools the earth. However, displacing the
West Antarctic ice sheet from its current location could hardly change by much the
amount of sunlight already reflected back to space. Moreover, if the snow and ice
did somehow increase in the Southern Hemisphere by this mechanism, it would have
little impact in the Northern Hemisphere. The two hemispheres generally act
independently of each other with little exchange of heat or moisture between them.
A theory that gives up on most other theories is that an ice age is simply caused
by chance fluctuations in the climate. Since small climate changes occur on short
time scales, it is supposed that large climate changes occur over long periods of
time. This assertion is backed up by sophisticated mathematics. The plausibility of
this theory, however, is open to serious question. According to what is generally
believed about the ice ages, ten ice ages waxed and waned regularly every 100,000
years. This defies the rules of chance. Since the theory cannot be tested, it does
not qualify as a scientific theory.
Summary
Scientists abhor a theoretical vacuum. It has been difficult finding even a
somewhat plausible theory to explain even one ice age. Adding to the difficulty,
geologists became convinced early on that there were many ice ages. So, a mechanism
that could produce more than one would be favored. One particular theory out of the
many has recently become popular since the 1970s. It is called the astronomical or
Milankovitch theory of the Ice Age. It is not new; meteorologists had previously
rejected it more than once (see The astronomical theory of the ice ages below).
When a phenomenon cannot be explained by existing data, the theories multiply. In
1968, in a volume on the causes of climate change, Erik Eriksson counted over 60
theories on the cause of the Ice Age. Although many have merit, each has fatal
flaws. After a lifetime of studying the Ice Age, J.K. Charlesworth3 commented on
the status of all these theories, including the astronomical theory:
Pleistocene [Ice Age] phenomena have produced an absolute riot of theories ranging
“from the remotely possible to the mutually contradictory and the palpably
inadequate.”
That is not saying much for Ice Age theories; Charlesworth is essentially saying
that all these theories are mammoth failures. Twenty-two years later, in 1979,
Brian John, reminiscing on Charlesworth’s words, relates that the situation has not
improved. In fact, he says that it is worse: “Things have become even more confused
since then …”.4
________________

The astronomical theory of the ice ages

Figure 6.2

Figure 6.2. The variation in the earth’s eccentricity for an assumed past two
million years. Units are in thousands of years.5 (Monograph is from the American
Meteorological Society.) View full-size.
Many people believe the earth travels around the sun like clockwork — never
changing. However, it has been discovered that the earth’s orbit around the sun
does change a little. Its path transforms from a circle to a slightly flattened
circle, called an ellipse, and back again to a circle. It would take 100,000 years
or so for each cycle.
Evolutionary scientists have extrapolated the eccentricity millions of years back
in the past (see figure 6.2). The difference of the earth’s orbit from a circle to
an ellipse is called the eccentricity. An eccentricity of zero is a circle.
The earth’s orbit itself revolves around the sun. This is especially noticeable
when the orbit is an ellipse. Such a cycle is hard to visualize. Think of it as an
elliptical path around the sun, and that the path slowly rotates around the sun.
The orbital path would make one rotation about every 22,000 years and is called the
precession of the equinoxes. In the current orbit of the earth, the sun is closest
in January and farthest in July (figure 6.3). In about 11,000 years, the sun will
be closer to the earth in July and farthest in January.
Many have been taught that the 23.5-degree tilt of the earth’s axis with respect to
the earth’s orbital plane about the sun never changes and causes the seasons. It is
true that this tilt causes the seasons. However, the tilt also changes a little
with time. It wobbles back and forth from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back to
22.1 degrees. A full cycle would take 40,000 years, assuming there were no other
forces.
The slight gravitational pull of the moon and planets on the earth cause all these
cyclical changes of the earth’s orbit. The variations are small with
correspondingly slight changes in the amount of sunlight around the globe (figure
6.3). The change in solar radiation caused by all three orbital variables is shown
in figure 6.4. Scientists postulate that a decrease in the sunlight at higher
latitudes in summer, caused by changes in the earth’s orbital geometry, would cause
an ice age. Alternatively, an increase in sunlight in the summer would cause an ice
sheet to melt. Since the above changes in sunlight are cyclical processes, it would
favor multiple ice ages repeating in a regular fashion — an attractive concept.
Figure 6.3

Figure 6.3. Present eccentricity of Earth’s orbit (flattened to illustrate the

phenomenon). Seasons are in reference to the Northern Hemisphere.
James Croll first proposed the astronomical theory in the late 1800s. It helped
persuade scientists to believe in many ice ages as opposed to just one. According
to the theory in the late 1880s, the last ice age ended about 70,000 years ago.
Scientific evidence was marshaled to “prove” that this termination time was true.
But, the astronomical theory was not well developed until the 1920s and 1930s, when
Milutin Milankovitch, a Serbian meteorologist, worked out many of the details with
more precision. According to the revised Milankovitch theory as the astronomical
theory is often called, the Ice Age peaked about 18,000 years ago. Data, once
again, were tweaked to “prove” this time for Ice Age maximum. Soon after
Milankovitch refined the theory, it came under a withering barrage of criticism,
mostly from meteorologists. It was quickly discarded in the 1950s and 1960s.
It is somewhat common in the history of science for a discarded theory to make a
comeback.6 This has proven true with the Milankovitch theory. New technology
applied to deep ocean-floor sediments and the persistence of several prominent
scientists have revived the theory. Based on properties of the ocean-bottom
sediments, oceanographers concluded there have been over 30 distinct ice ages that
have repeated regularly, each completely melting during what is called an
interglacial period. Some even consider the mystery of the Ice Age as solved.7
Despite the enthusiasm of most scientists toward the astronomical theory, it has a
number of serious, most likely fatal, flaws. The changes in summer sunshine at high
latitudes postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Heating at
higher latitudes depends only partially on the amount of sunshine. Northward
transport of heat by the atmosphere and ocean currents are also important, but
mostly neglected by proponents of this theory. Heat transport would lessen the
cooling effect caused by reduced sunshine. Between heat transport and the already
small effect of reduced sunshine, the cooling would be negligible.
Meteorologists have known about this weakness in the theory for a long time. It
contributed to its earlier demise. Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle8 expressed his
sentiments for the Milankovitch theory by saying:
If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally
supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice
cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch
theory.
The “night-storage heaters” are the other processes that supply heat to higher
latitudes, while the ice cube represents the slight cooling due to the astronomical
theory.
Figure 6.4

Figure 6.4. The net change in solar radiation in langleys per day received at the
top of the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere caloric summer for an assumed time
interval of 160,000 years in the past to 50,000 years in the future. Minus latitude
is for the Southern Hemisphere. Units are in thousands of years.9 (Monograph is
from the American Meteorological Society.) View full-size.
Data from oceanic sediments supposedly show that the 100,000-year eccentricity
cycle is the most important cycle for repeating ice ages. This particular cycle,
however, is the smallest of the three orbital variations by far. It causes almost
no change in the summer sunshine at higher latitudes. Scientists are greatly
perplexed and have been shopping around for a secondary mechanism to boost their
theory.
Another serious problem is that the ice age cycles supposedly occur at the same
times in both the Southern and the Northern Hemispheres. But the decreased sunlight
caused by the precession of the equinoxes generally alternates between hemispheres,
as shown in figure 6.4. When the Northern Hemisphere has a slightly lower intensity
of sunlight during the summer, the Southern Hemisphere has an increased intensity
of summer sunlight. Since the two hemispheres are generally separated
climatologically, why the supposed ice ages and interglacials would cycle in phase
has never been answered.
With so many scientific objections to the astronomical theory, one may ask why it
is so popular. I believe it is because the apparent statistical matches from deep-
sea cores have swayed most scientists. There are many problems, however, in
relating properties of deep-sea cores to the astronomical theory. Accurate dates
are needed, but the dating methods are not all that accurate. Unfortunately, the
numbers that make up the statistics seem to have a high degree of interpretation
mixed into them. One never knows how much is interpretation and how much is fact.
Another reason for the popularity of the theory is that such a dramatic event as
the Ice Age of the recent past demands an explanation and any explanation is better
than none — even if it is the weak astronomical theory.
Footnotes
1. Michaels, P.J., and R.C. Balling Jr., The satanic gases: Clearing the air about
global warming, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2000.
2. Donn, W.L., and M. Ewing, The theory of an ice-free Arctic Ocean; in: The causes
of climatic change, J.M. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), Meteorological Monographs 8(30),
American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, p. 100–105, 1968.
3. Charlesworth, J.K., The Quaternary era, Edward Arnold, London, p. 1532, 1957.
4. John, B., Ice ages: A search for reasons; in: Winters of the world, B.S. John
(Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 57, 1979.
5. Vernekar, A.D., Long-period global variations of incoming solar radiation,
Meteorological Monographs 12(34), American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA,
1972.
6. Charlesworth, The Quaternary era, p. viii.
7. Imbrie, J., and K.P. Imbrie, Ice ages: Solving the mystery, Enslow Publishers,
Short Hills, NJ, 1979.
8. Hoyle, F., Ice, the ultimate human catastrophe, Continuum, New York, p. 77,
1981.
9. Vernekar, A.D., Long-period global variations of incoming solar radiation,
Meteorological Monographs 12(34), American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA,
1972.
Chapter 7
Is Man the Cause of Global Warming?
by Michael J. Oard on April 17, 2013; last featured November 26, 2013
Featured in The New Answers Book 3
Global warming is big news. Should we be worried?
Is global warming real? Is it all caused by man? Should we as Christians care about
global warming? What should we do about it?
Global warming is big news. The media, environmentalists, and politicians, such as
Al Gore,1 continue to pound away that global warming is real, it is man-caused, and
great harm will come to our world because of it. Some even say that global warming
is the most significant threat to ever affect man. Bjorn Lomborg quotes respected
scientist James Lovelock as saying: “Before this century is over, billions of us
will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic
where the climate remains tolerable.”2 Intense storms of various sorts, drought,
and heat waves will devastate the earth.3
Is all this true? Is global warming real? Is it all caused by man? Should we as
Christians care about global warming, and if we do care, what should we do about
it?
Man Is a Steward of God’s Creation
We should be concerned with global warming, as well as other environmental issues,
simply because God created the universe, the world, and everything in it (Exodus
20:11). It is His creation; He created it directly with a purpose and with man in
mind. It did not evolve over billions of years. Man was told right away in the
Garden of Eden to take dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26–28), which means that
we are to be stewards of His creation. We are to cultivate and take care of our
surroundings, which at that time was the Garden of Eden: “Then the LORD God took
the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Genesis 2:15).
What Should Christians Do about Global Warming?
Amidst all the hype, Christians need to first apply 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all
things; hold fast what is good.” We are to hold fast to God’s Word, the Bible, and
Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Then we need to examine the evidence carefully. As
stewards of God’s creation, it will take time and energy to find out the facts. It
is too easy to accept a superficial analysis of a controversial subject, in which
case we might learn just enough to get into trouble. No, we need to dig deeper than
the superficial level.
It is no different than evaluating the creation/evolution issue. At the superficial
level, evolutionists can paint a pretty picture. It is only when you dig below the
surface that you find out that evolution is unsubstantiated.
Since creationists are used to separating data from interpretation (the battle
between creation and evolution is not over the data but the interpretation of the
data), it is relatively easy to apply the same principles to the global warming
issue. So we need to check the real data first. We need to be as objective as
possible when examining the data, realizing that bias for man-made global warming
and its harms is rampant.4
Evaluating the Data
When we examine the data, what can we say about global warming? This section will
evaluate the facts, while the next main section will delve into additional
evidence. We will then be able to evaluate global warming.
Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases Have Increased
First, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have increased
significantly over the past 100 years (Figures 1a, b). These have been measured
continuously since the middle of the 20th century and inferred from proxy
indicators before that.
Annual Global Temperature

Figure 1a: Annual global temperature from 1850 to July 2009, from the U.K. Met
Office Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia. Note that temperatures have been cooling since about 2002.
________________
Global Temperatures and Carbon Dioxide

Figure 1b: The increase in carbon dioxide since 1880.

Carbon dioxide has been continuously measured since 1959 and been inferred mainly
from tree rings and ice cores before 1959. Note that carbon dioxide has increased
more after about 1960 than before. Despite the title of the article from which this
graphic is taken, the correlation of CO2 and temperature does not demonstrate a
cause-effect relationship.5
Carbon dioxide has been added to the air primarily because of the burning of fossil
fuels since the industrial revolution. A secondary source for carbon dioxide is
believed to be tropical deforestation. As trees are cut down, they rot and the
carbon in the wood is oxidized to carbon dioxide. It is true that forests are being
cut down in the tropics, especially in Brazil. However, forests grow back. So, it
is not deforestation that counts, but the total amount of forest. When we consider
the total amount of forest, the trend is unclear; we cannot be certain if it is
increasing or decreasing.6 So the rotting of tropical trees likely is not a
significant source of carbon dioxide for the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is actually a minor gas in the greenhouse effect. The major
greenhouse gas is water vapor, which accounts for 95 percent of greenhouse
warming.7 The greenhouse effect is actually good. Without these greenhouse gases
the earth would be about 60°F cooler, and we would likely all freeze to death.
It is theoretically true that the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases should cause warmer temperatures. The main question is how much.
There Are Natural Causes of Climate Change
A second fact is that there are natural causes of climate change. There are short-
period natural processes that change the temperature by about a degree over several
years. Two of these are a strong volcanic eruption that causes cooler global
temperatures and an El Nińo that causes warmer global temperatures. Volcanism
causes cooling by the reflection of sunlight back to space from particles trapped
in the stratosphere. The amount of carbon dioxide and water vapor given off during
volcanism is insignificant over the space and time periods significant to climate
change.
There are also long-period temperature changes caused by effects on the sun that
can be correlated to the number of sunspots: the more sunspots, the warmer the
temperature on earth and vice versa. Since sunspots are cool spots, heating on
earth seems counter intuitive. But when there are many sunspots, there are also
many hot spots, called faculae, that more than make up for the cool spots. Two long
period temperature changes recognized are the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from about
800 to 1200 and the Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1400 to 1880 (Figure 2). These
have been based on historical records and are well correlated to the number of
sunspots using proxy data.8 Variations in carbon dioxide levels were not
responsible for these changes.
Revised Global Temperature Anomolies

Figure 2. Average global temperature for the past 2,000 years showing the Medieval
Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA). Before about the middle 1800s,
there was little change in carbon dioxide to cause these fluctuations.
The climatic effect of natural processes is also seen during the 20th century by
comparing the increase in carbon dioxide with the temperature change (Figure 1b).
Carbon dioxide increased slowly until after World War II and then accelerated. But
the global temperature rose strongly from 1910 to 1940 (remember the dust bowl
years in the 1930s), dropped a little between 1940 and 1975 (remember the coming
ice age scare), and rose strongly again from 1975 to about 2002. The temperature
has generally been cooling from 2002 to 2009 while carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
continues to increase substantially. Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West stated that
natural cycles from the sun account for at least 50 percent of the 20th century
global warming.9
The increase in the amount of sunshine reaching the earth with a large number of
sunspots is small. This is why many man-made global warming advocates discount the
significance of the sun. It is known that higher sunspot numbers, which cause a
stronger solar magnetic field, better shield the earth from cosmic rays. It is
possible that fewer cosmic rays result in fewer low clouds that cause warmer
surface temperatures and vice versa.10 This hypothesis has been seriously
challenged, so only time will tell if the hypothesis stands.
There Is No Consensus of Scientists
Third, although it is commonly claimed that there is a consensus of scientists that
blame man for global warming, in actuality there is no consensus at all. Many
prominent scientists disagree. Dr. Art Robinson has maintained a website since
1998, signed by around 20,000 scientists, saying that, as of 2009, there is no
convincing scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are causing or will cause
catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s
climate.11 Of these, over 2,500 are physicists, geophysicists, climatologists,
meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists, who are particularly
qualified to evaluate global warming.
Climate Simulations Exaggerate Carbon Dioxide Warming
Fourth, dozens of computer climate simulations have attempted to quantify the
relationship between increased carbon dioxide and temperature change. In the
simulations, the scientists double carbon dioxide and leave every other variable
alone. The resulting temperature changes range from 3°F to 11° F warming, usually
by the year 2100.
But these simulations are crude, since the computer models cannot accurately
simulate the many types of clouds and their effects, solar and infrared radiation
processes, ocean processes, ice processes, etc.12 The strengths and weaknesses of
computer models need to be understood, but it seems that those who want runaway
global warming believe these models without question.
It is interesting that nature has partially run the experiment for us. Carbon
dioxide has increased a little more than 30 percent since the industrial
revolution. Other greenhouse gases, not including water vapor, also have increased
about 30 percent in “carbon dioxide equivalency units,” for a total increase of
about 60 percent in “carbon dioxide.”13 Global warming is claimed to be 1.2°F (yes,
you heard right, the warming has been very small so far), but at least half is from
natural causes. So if a 60 percent increase in “carbon dioxide” causes only a 0.6
degree Fahrenheit warming (man’s share), a doubling of carbon dioxide should cause
a 1°F warming. The models are therefore 3 to 11 times too sensitive to a doubling
of carbon dioxide and should not be believed.
Some Benefits of Global Warming
Fifth, despite all the well-publicized harms, there are benefits to global warming.
The media typically exaggerate the harms. Take for example the supposed decreasing
polar bear populations as a result of less sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere. This
was the theme behind the popular movie Arctic Tale.14 Lomborg documents that the
polar bear populations actually have increased.15
Some net benefits are that global warming will save the lives of more people, since
many more people die of the cold than die of the heat. For instance, in Europe,
seven times as many people die of the cold than die of the heat.16 Other benefits
include more plant growth due to higher carbon dioxide levels, aiding farming and
ranching; crops able to be grown at higher latitudes; and shipping through ice-free
areas of the Arctic Ocean, which will save much fuel and money. At this point it is
difficult to tell whether there will be a net benefit or a net harm. Only objective
research will determine this.
The Cost to “Fight” Global Warming Is Horrendous
Athabasca Glacier

Figure 3: Athabasca Glacier, Canadian Rockies, was near the sign in 1890. It has
since melted back to its current location due to global warming.
Sixth, if certain environmentalists and politicians get their way, the cost to
“fight” global warming will be horrendous, if the attempt is successful and doesn’t
produce even worse side effects. Lomborg estimates the cost of fighting global
warming at many trillions of dollars.17 Although Lomborg actually believes in the
temperature rises suggested by the computer models, he makes a strong case that
this money is best spent elsewhere, and that the earth will adapt to warming.
Additional Evidence
In any analysis of such a controversial subject, there is bound to be uncertainty
in some variables. Only four of the most important will be evaluated.
Global Warming Is Real
First, global warming is real. Although some claim there is no global warming or we
cannot measure it, the evidence for global warming is compelling. The claimed
warming since 1880 is only 1.2°F. But we see the effects of the warming in that
practically all glaciers have receded since about 1880 (Figure 3), and the sea ice
in the Arctic Ocean has decreased (Figure 4).
Minimum Sea Ice Extent

Figure 4: Minimum sea ice extent mid-September 2009, compared with the 1979 to 2000
average minimum (courtesy of the National Snow and Ice Data Center). However, the
amount of sea ice has recovered 15 percent over 2008, which was about 10 percent
greater than the record low in 2007, possibly due to global cooling as shown in
Figure 1a.
The recent global warming is not caused by the earth breaking out of the Ice Age18
about 4,000 years ago, because the atmosphere responds very fast to changes that
affect climate. The change in seasons is one example of how fast the temperature
can change when the angle of the sun changes. The earth has been more or less in
steady state since the end of the Ice Age.
However, there is a question of whether the amount of claimed warming is accurate,
since there are many biases (mostly favoring warming) in the longterm temperature
records. Although those who analyze global temperatures have mostly purged the
record of these errors, the claimed warming likely is too warm. Professor Robert
Balling has studied these biases for a long time and has concluded:
But as this chapter makes clear, major problems remain. First, the temperature
records are far from perfect and contain contaminations from urbanization,
distribution of measurement stations, instrument changes, time of observation
biases, assorted problems in measuring near-surface temperatures in ocean areas,
and on and on. This could introduce a total bias of 0.2°C to 0.3°C, or about one-
third of the observed warming.19
This means that global warming since 1880 may be only about 0.8°F, which is closer
to the satellite and weather balloon data of the lower atmosphere.
The Lower Atmosphere is Warming Less than 1.2°F
Second, satellites have been measuring the amount of temperature change in the
atmosphere since 1979. Weather balloons have been probing the atmosphere for longer
than that. At first, it was thought that the satellite temperatures showed a
cooling trend. However, there were some errors in the measurements. Now, it appears
that the satellite and weather balloon data both show less warming in the lower
atmosphere than the claimed 1.2°F surface warming.20
The Climate Likely Cannot Jump to a More Catastrophic Mode
Oxygen Isotope Ratio

Figure 5: The oxygen isotope ratio from bedrock to the top of the GISP2 ice core at
Summit on the Greenland Ice Sheet (plot courtesy of Dr. Larry Vardiman). The oxygen
isotope ratio is generally proportional to temperature with cooler temperatures to
the left.
Third, some scientists have concluded that the atmosphere goes through thresholds
to different climatic states. They believe that although our climate has been
steady, global warming may bring the temperature up to the “tipping point” that
will cause a shift to a much different climate, possibly leading to an ice age. The
threshold idea is based on Greenland ice cores showing large, abrupt changes in
temperature during the Ice Age portion (Figure 5).
Some suggest that global warming will halt the Gulf Stream that transports warm
water into the high North Atlantic Ocean. Temperatures then plummet in Europe and
an ice age can occur. This is the basis of the movie The Day After Tomorrow,21
taken from the preposterous book The Coming Global Superstorm. 22 Despite Hollywood
fantasy, some scientists believe that such a scenario is possible over a time frame
of a decade or two.
The idea of an abrupt climate change after the temperature passes a “threshold” is
where the worldview issue between creation and evolution is crucial. Evolutionary
scientists date the ice cores at hundreds of thousands of years old, and the ice
sheets are believed to have been more or less the same thickness for millions of
years. But these abrupt temperature changes in the ice cores are due to a rapid,
post-Flood Ice Age and are only related to changes during a unique Ice Age.23
Storms and Droughts Likely Unchanged
Fourth, it seems like every large storm, drought, or heat wave that occurs in the
world is blamed on man-made global warming. But these things have been happening
for millennia. The problem is that most people have short memories about past
events. Furthermore, damage is greater now because more people and property lie in
harm’s way. But overall, there do not seem to be any long-term trends in any of
these weather events.24
Summary
In the face of claims that man is causing disastrous global warming, an objective
look at the facts and additional evidence show otherwise. Natural processes on the
sun account for over 50 percent of the claimed 1.2°F global warming, which is
likely too warm. Since the climate simulations greatly exaggerate the temperature
rise from an increase in carbon dioxide, these models cannot be trusted. Thus, man
is likely responsible for only about 0.5°F warming—miniscule and likely impossible
to mitigate.
What is really needed is unbiased research in climate change. Climate disaster is
not just around the corner; we have sufficient time for careful research.
Acknowledgment
I thank Drs. Larry Vardiman and Jason Lisle for reviewing the manuscript and
offering valuable improvements.
Footnotes
1. Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and
What We Can Do About It (New York, NY: Rodale Press, 2006).
2. B. Lomborg, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
(New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), p. 41.
3. N. Shute, “The Weather Turns Wild,” U.S. News & World Report, February 5, 2001,
p. 44–52.
4. J. Pena and R. Vogel, eds., Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Exposé of
Climate Change (DVD), Coral Ridge Ministries and Answers in Genesis, 2008; L.
Vardiman, Some Like It Hot (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009);
M.J. Oard, “Global Warming: Examine the Issue Carefully,” Answers, October–December
2006, p. 24–26.
5. ZFacts, “Evidence that CO2 Is Cause,” www.zfacts.com/p/226.html.
6. A. Granger, “Difficulties in Tracking the Long-term Global Trend in Tropical
Forest Area,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105 no. 2 (2008): 818–
823.
7. P.J. Michaels and R.C. Balling Jr., The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About
Global Warming (Washington, D.: Cato Institute, 2000), p. 25–28.
8. C. Loehle and J.H. McCulloch, “Correction to a 2000-year Global Temperature
Reconstruction Based on Non-tree Ring Proxies,” Energy & Environment 19 no. 1
(2008): 93–100.
9. N. Scafetta and B. West, “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?” Physics
Today 61 no. 3 (2008): 50–51.
10. H. Svensmark, “Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges,” Astronomy and
Geophysics 48 no. 1 (2007): 18–24; L. Vardiman, “A New Theory of Climate Change,”
Acts & Facts 37 no. 11 (2008): 10–12.
11. Global Warming Petition Project, www.petitionproject.org.
12. Michaels and Balling, The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming,
p. 55–73.
13. Ibid., p. 27.
14. M.J. Oard, movie review: “Arctic Tale—Exaggerating the Effects of Global
Warming,” www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/arctic-tale.
15. Lomborg, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, p.
3–9.
16. Ibid., p. 17.
17. Ibid, p. 32–38.
18. M.J. Oard, Frozen In Time: The Woolly Mammoth, the Ice Age, and the Biblical
Key to Their Secrets (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004).
19. R.C. Balling Jr., “Observational Surface Temperature Records Versus Model
Predictions,” in P.J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global
Warming (New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005), p. 67.
20. J. Christy, “Temperature Changes in the Bulk of the Atmosphere,” in P.J.
Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (New York, NY:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2005), p. 72–105.
21. M.J. Oard, “The Greenhouse Warming Hype of the Movie The Day After Tomorrow,”
Acts & Facts Impact, 373 (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2004).
22. A. Bell and W. Strieber, The Coming Global Superstorm (New York, NY: Pocket
Books, 2000).
23. M.J. Oard, The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland
and Antarctic Ice Sheets (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2005).
24. P.J. Michaels, The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media (Washington DC: CATO Institute, 2004).
Science Confirms Climate Change!
by Avery Foley on November 22, 2014
Did you know that what you believe about origins will affect how you view climate
change?
Up until recent times, we heard certain politicians and others warning about global
warming! But one hasn’t heard that term for quite a while now—and with the recent
wintery weather in the United States, global warming would not be the way to
describe what’s happening. The term we hear now is “climate change.”
Over the last few decades, there has been much debate over the topic of climate
change.
Is it real? What or who is causing it? Should we be concerned? There is evidence
that climate change is indeed a real phenomenon. There was a period of global
warming during the medieval days which dropped into a cooling trend known as the
“Little Ice Age.” For the past 400 years, temperatures have been slowly climbing up
from that chilly dip. But, while the evidence shows that there has been and still
is change in the climate, the evidence does not speak for itself about what this
change means. The data must be interpreted. How should Bible-believing Christians
interpret this evidence?
Your Worldview Determines Your Interpretation
We have emphasized many times the vital distinction between observational and
historical science in the creation/evolution debate. But this contrast is also
foundational to properly understanding the climate change debate. Observational
science works in the present. It is observable, testable, and repeatable. But
historical science deals with the past and, therefore, is not directly observable,
testable, or repeatable. How you interpret the observational science will be based
on what you believe about historical science. Do you start with man’s word that the
universe has been around for billions of years and that the present is the key to
the past? Or do you start with God’s Word that teaches a young universe and an
earth that was radically altered by a recent global Flood? Which worldview you
start with is going to determine how you view and interpret the observational
science.
This is certainly true in the climate change debate. The observational evidence
shows that climate change is real. But how we interpret the data about climate
change will be influenced by our starting point: man’s word or God’s Word?
According to Man’s Word
Secularists believe that Earth has existed for billions of years and that Earth’s
temperature has been stable for over 10,000 years, since the end of the last
supposed glacial period. Since the observational science shows that Earth’s climate
is now changing, these secularists assume that human activity must be the cause of
this change. If this is true, then a changing climate is understandably a concern
for them. But this model is built on unprovable assumptions about Earth’s history.
The methods such as tree ring and ice core dating that are used to give these
stable temperature readings are also fraught with unprovable assumptions. These
assumptions reject the eye-witness account of Earth’s history that God has given us
in His Word.
According to God’s Word
If we start with God’s Word, we get a very different picture of Earth’s history.
According to the Bible’s history, the earth is not billions of years old but only
about 6,000 years old. Originally, there was a perfect creation (Genesis 1:31),
which would have included a perfect climate. However, this climate was radically
changed when the surface of Earth was destroyed, reshaped, and rearranged by the
global Flood of Noah’s day around 4,300 years ago. As the earth was settling from
the Flood, there was a transitional climate which included an Ice Age that covered
30% of the earth’s surface in ice. This transitional climate slowly gave way to the
present climate as the earth evened out from the aftereffects of the Flood.
Therefore, starting with a biblical model for Earth’s history, we should expect
variations in climate and temperature.
So should we be alarmed about climate change?
So should we be alarmed about climate change? Not at all. Yes, climate change is
real, but according to the true history book of the universe, we should expect it
as a consequence of the cataclysmic Flood. Also, Earth—and Earth’s climate—was
designed by the all-knowing, all-wise Creator God. He built an incredible amount of
variety into the DNA of His creatures so that they could survive and thrive as
Earth’s environments change. Surely the God who equipped life to survive on a
changing Earth also designed Earth with the necessary features to deal with
environmental changes. After the Flood, God even promised Noah that the climate
would remain within acceptable ranges:
While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease. (Genesis 8:22)
Starting with God’s Word, variations in the climate should not alarm us. If you
start with man’s assumptions about the past, man must be directly responsible for
recent changes in climate. But starting with the Bible’s history, it’s obvious that
man’s recent activity is not directly responsible for global climate change issues.
However, man and his wickedness were responsible for bringing God’s judgment of the
Flood that radically changed the climate. So, in a sense, people who lived over
3,000 years ago are at least in part responsible for climate change! But we
shouldn’t be overly concerned about climate change, because it has been happening
since the time of the Flood.
So Do Creationists Deny Climate Change?
The observational evidence for variations in temperature is real.
While we have made it clear in other articles and in media interviews that we do
not deny climate change, secularists are constantly accusing us of refusing to
acknowledge climate change. We do not deny climate change. The observational
evidence for variations in temperature is real. What we do deny is the worldview-
based assumptions that determine secular scientists’ interpretations and
conclusions about the evidence. Just like in the creation/evolution and age of the
earth debates, your starting point determines your interpretation of the evidence.
If you start from the perspective that Earth is billions of years old and that
Earth’s temperature has been stable for over 10,000 years, you will reach an
entirely different conclusion than if you start with a belief in a young Earth
radically reshaped by a global Flood.
What Should Our Response Be?
Mankind was given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28), but proper stewardship of
what God has given us means that we need to take care of the earth. But we should
never regard caring for the earth over caring for the people that inhabit the
earth. Mankind—not the earth—is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and is therefore
precious. God cares about nature but cares far more about people (Matthew 12:6–7).
Many of the measures that climate change alarmists propose, such as drastic changes
in energy uses, will have far-reaching effects on the less fortunate. It is
therefore vital that we examine the worldview-based assumptions behind the
interpretation of climate change before we make decisions about human behavior.
As Christians, we need to start with God’s Word, not man’s word, when it comes to
Earth’s history. God was there in the beginning and since He does not lie (Titus
1:2), we know that the record that He was given us in His Word is the true account
of Earth’s history.
Yes, your starting point for your worldview (God’s Word or man’s word) will affect
how you view climate change!
The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!
by Dr. Alan White on March 4, 2015
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
Climate change, or global warming, is thought by many alarmists to be man-made and
potentially catastrophic. In a biblical worldview, climates change but the Flood
and the Ice Age impact how climate data (e.g. ice cores) should be understood.
Without this starting point, climate scientists will reach wrong conclusions.
There continues to be a furor over climate change. Some are convinced that our
climate is fragile, that human activities are causing dangerous changes to the
climate, and that immediate corrective action is essential. Others are skeptical.
The skeptics, like me, believe that some of the claims are not well supported by
the evidence. Emotions run high as some advocates for corrective action label the
skeptics as “deniers” because they are so certain those dire consequences are
imminent. The skeptics are often infuriated with the advocates because they are
worried that higher energy costs will unnecessarily lower the standard of living
for everyone. Clearly, climate change is not purely a scientific question. Emotions
only run this high when the issue will affect how we live. In this political
debate, the issues have become clouded (pun intended), and the facts are often
ignored.
FREE Bible Guide
Quick answers to common questions about the Bible, God's Word - for FREE.
DOWNLOAD NOW
As Christians, How Should We Approach This Issue?
While there are certainly issues that are more important for a Christian, climate
change is one that we should not ignore. The consequences of both action and
inaction related to the climate could impact the well being of all the inhabitants
of the earth. In addition, the Lord has given us the responsibility to care for
this planet that He created.1 In order for us to do that task well, we need to know
more about our climate. As a scientist, I look forward to that challenge.
Separating fact from fiction will not be easy. To be sure, everyone’s worldview has
an effect on how he looks at this issue. Christians are less likely to be concerned
about the climate going out of control since they believe the earth and its climate
were designed and created by an all-knowing and all-powerful God. Those who believe
that the heavens and the earth are the result of a random, accidental process
naturally will be concerned about what may happen next.
In order to find the truth, we will need to understand some basic scientific
principles and carefully evaluate the experimental data. If we study the climate
and determine that our actions are detrimental to our planet, we will need to
modify our behavior. If, however, we determine that our actions are not causing
harm and that corrective actions are unnecessary, then we should speak up and
defend those that will be hurt the most by the corrective actions—the poor. Let’s
begin our examination of the important questions with regard to climate change.
Is the Average Global Temperature Actually Rising?
The short answer is yes. This is an issue within the climate change debate where
there is reasonable agreement. Temperature measurements have been made since 1880
at land-based weather stations. These measurements indicate that there has been
about a 1.3°F rise in temperature since AD 1880. While the urban “heat island”
effect, the buildup of urban areas around these weather stations, is likely
responsible for a portion of this increase in temperature, a significant portion of
the increase is real. Let me reiterate that point so there is no misunderstanding—
the global temperature has been rising since the Little Ice Age.
The overall trend over the past 400 years is up.
Many who are currently claiming that there is no global warming are referring only
to the last 15 years. Satellite data, which are the most accurate data available
today, show no significant change in the average global temperature in this
timeframe. While this is technically accurate, it is a bit misleading since the
overall trend over the past 400 years is up. No one knows whether the temperature
will rise or fall in the next 400 years. Our climate models are a long way from
being helpful in answering that question.
Many continue to claim that scientists who believe in creation and have a biblical
worldview deny that the global temperature has been rising over the past few
centuries. That is just not so. A number of articles have been published in the
past ten years indicating a general agreement with that fact among creation
scientists.2 That is not where the disagreement lies. The major disagreements are
focused on these three questions:
1. Is this latest temperature rise outside of the normal variability of the
climate?
2. Is the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the cause of
the latest temperature rise?
3. Are the current mathematical models of the climate useful for predicting the
future?
Is the Latest Temperature Rise Outside of the Normal Variability of the Climate?
First we need to define what we mean by climate. Climate is commonly defined as it
is in this quote from the NASA website.
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a
particular area.
Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and
time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather
for a particular region.3
Given this timeframe of 30 years, then, yes, the global climate is changing.
However, if you consider climate to be defined as the weather pattern over
centuries as some do, then the answer would be different.
While systematic, worldwide temperature measurements were not made prior to AD
1880, temperature estimates have been made based on scientific data that many
believe to correlate fairly well with temperature. Ljungqvist recently did such an
estimate for the past 2,000 years (Figure 1) based on the best data available.4
Even though this paper does not answer conclusively the question of whether the
Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our climate is today, it provides a sensible
approximation of past global temperatures and gives us some perspective. It is
important to remember that science cannot tell us with certainty what happened in
the distant past. From Ljungqvist’s paper it is reasonable to conclude that there
has been normal climate variation of about 0.8°C (1.3°F) over the past 2,000 years
and that the temperature has been in the neighborhood of the current global
temperature twice before. Therefore, no special cause is required to explain the
current global temperature. It is, however, reasonable to try to understand the
causes of the normal variation in temperature so that we can better care for the
planet in the event the temperature does go beyond the normal range to an extent
that is harmful to human life.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Is the Increased Concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere the Cause of the
Latest Temperature Rise?
This is the major point of disagreement within the climate change debate. Those in
the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are convinced that human-
generated greenhouse gases are the major cause of global warming. In their latest
report in 2014 they put it this way:
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era,
driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever.
This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects,
together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout
the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century.5
By extremely likely, the IPCC means that they are 95–100% confident in this
conclusion. Is this level of confidence warranted in light of the temperature
approximation in Figure 1? The IPCC is claiming that greenhouse gases generated by
man (anthropogenic) caused the warming from AD 1950 to 2000. If so, what was the
cause of the warming leading up to AD 200, or from AD 500 to 1000, or from AD 1700
to 1750, or for that matter from AD 1880 to 1950? It is highly unlikely that humans
caused these other warming cycles by burning fossil fuels. It is apparent there is
no correlation of human activity with global temperature over the last 2000 years.
Could there have been higher CO2 levels from some other cause in the past few
centuries? Obviously, there are no direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 back that
far, but scientists have estimated the amount of CO2 in the air in the past 1000
years. These estimates are based on air that was trapped in the ice layers in
Antarctica.6 There are many assumptions that go into interpreting these data.
Certainly there are challenges in determining which depth is related to which year.
Etheridge and coauthors were able to correlate the layers back to 1815 by matching
up higher levels of acidity in the ice with the times of known volcanic eruptions.
Nevertheless, they are comfortable with the data in the entire age range. In
general, as you go deeper in the ice, the layers become more compressed due to the
weight and the dates become more uncertain. Two other major assumptions are that
the samples were tightly sealed in the ice and that no chemical reactions occurred
in the interim. These are not unreasonable assumptions given the temperatures that
were likely present over the past 1,000 years in Antarctica. If you compare these
CO2 estimates of Etheridge with the temperature estimates of Ljungqvist (Figure 2),
the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration is clear, based
on the best evidence we have. The global temperature declines significantly from
the Medieval Warm period to the Little Ice age while the CO2 concentration barely
changes. In addition, the temperature rise beginning around AD 1700 precedes the
rise in CO2 concentration, which is not what you would expect if a rising CO2
concentration were the cause of rising temperatures.
Figure 2
Figure 2

More recently, ice cores have been removed much deeper in Antarctica. The data from
these ice layers led scientists to believe that atmospheric CO2 levels have
oscillated between about 180 ppm and 300 ppm (Figure 3).7 Again, this estimate of
the composition of the air in times past is based on assumptions about the past of
which we cannot be sure. In particular, I would not agree with the assumptions that
led to these estimated dates, but it is reasonable to conclude that CO2 has varied
within this approximate range in the recent past and that lower ice layers are from
more ancient times. The IPCC is highly concerned that the present CO2 concentration
has risen above this “ceiling” of 300 ppm. This concern about a rise in temperature
is unwarranted due to the lack of correlation between the CO2 concentration and
global temperature.
Figure 3
Figure 3

On the other hand, CO2 is very important to life on Earth. In particular, it is

very important to pay attention to this “floor” of carbon dioxide levels around 180
ppm. Plants grow using an incredibly complicated and brilliantly designed process
called photosynthesis where about 50 enzymes and 100 cofactors work together to
take CO2, water, and sunlight and convert them into sugars and oxygen. When plants
are starved for CO2, photosynthesis does not work well. This “floor” of 180 ppm CO2
just “happens” to be the level at which plant growth becomes very difficult.8 If
CO2 were to go below 180 ppm for any significant period of time, plant life would
be in significant jeopardy. Without plant life on Earth, there would be no human
life. Is it an accident that the CO2 concentration stayed in a range that allowed
plants to survive, or was it by design?
Notice how the CO2 level in the atmosphere affects the growth of the plants (Figure
4).9 If you feel the need to worry about something, it makes more sense to worry
about low levels of CO2 rather than high levels. As you can see from Figure 4,
higher levels of CO2 are desirable for plants. As of January 8, 2015, the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere was 399.98 ppm.10 The growth rate for plants
increases from 5–50% when CO2 levels are higher than current levels. The maximum
growth rates for most plants occur when CO2 levels are in the range of 1,000 to
1,200 ppm.11 For humans, the negative effects of high CO2 don’t begin until about
5,000–10,000 ppm. When thinking about the consequences of higher levels of CO2, it
is also important to remember that the greenhouse gas effect for CO2 diminishes at
higher levels. The direct effect of the CO2 concentration is approximately
logarithmic, which means that going from 200 to 400 ppm CO2 has about the same
effect as going from 400 to 800 ppm. When pondering what we think the CO2 level
should be, we should consider all the relevant issues (many of which are not
mentioned here), including our ability to feed everyone on the planet.
Figure 4
Figure 4

Are the Current Mathematical Models Useful for Predicting the Future Climate?
This question brings to mind the famous quote by Yogi Berra: “Its tough to make
predictions, especially about the future.”
The climate of the earth is incredibly complicated and currently not well
understood. This is obvious when you look at the lack of success of the many
different climate models. Currently, the models do not even match up well with the
past temperatures, much less predict future temperatures (Figure 5).12
Figure 5. Observed Global Temperatures (symbols) vs. 73 Different Model Predictions
(lines)
Figure 5

Though it is relatively easy to estimate the amount of heat that greenhouse gases
absorb and emit back toward the earth (climatologists call this “forcing”), it is
much more difficult to determine how the planet will adjust to the additional heat
(climatologists call this “feedback”). Essentially all the current climate models
have overestimated the global temperature in the past and future. Many
climatologists believe that there are stronger positive feedbacks within the
climate than negative feedbacks. In other words, they believe that the climate
amplifies warming caused by greenhouse gases rather than moderating it. If that
were true, why hasn’t the global temperature already gone out of control? Negative
feedback systems, like the thermostat in your house, are known to lead to
stability; whereas positive feedback systems often lead to instability, like the
deafening audio feedback when a speaker and a microphone are put too close
together. It seems more likely that our climate is dominated by negative feedbacks
since Earth’s temperature has been amazingly stable for at least 2,000 years with
only a 1.3°F change.
Climatologists seem obsessed with understanding the effect of greenhouse gases and
aerosols caused by man. But these have a minor effect relative to the major
“natural” effects of clouds, water vapor, and “natural” CO2. Gaining a better
understanding of these natural effects will allow climatologists to begin to make
better models. Unfortunately, we would not be able to make highly predictive models
now even if we understood clouds because there is not enough computing power
available to do the calculations at the resolution necessary to accurately predict
individual clouds. Hopefully we will make significant progress in understanding
these natural forces over the next few years so that we can make better predictive
models. Accurate models will be necessary to convince the world to change, if
change were to become necessary, but even that might not be sufficient.
Conclusion
It seems that politicians and the media have always been concerned about the
climate. In the late 1970s, there was concern about global cooling. The temperature
had declined for about 30 years, and many were convinced that we were headed for
the next ice age. Almost immediately, the temperature started to rise and continued
to rise until about the year 2000. Early in the new century, politicians were
clamoring that the rise in global temperature was getting out of control and were
blaming humankind for causing it. At the height of the concern about warming, it
started to become obvious that the temperature increase had paused, and little
change has been noticed now for about the last 15 years. In the absence of a short-
term warming or cooling trend about which to panic, the politicians have turned to
saying that weather patterns are much more extreme than in the past. Again, there
is no convincing evidence to support this new claim when considering the longer-
term perspective. Even the latest IPCC report significantly contradicts this
view.13
The globe is warming, but it’s not your fault.
The data are clear. The global temperature has been rising since the Little Ice
Age. But today’s temperature is not unprecedented. Based on the best information we
have, it is in the neighborhood of the temperature during the Medieval Warm Period,
about 1,000 years ago. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and, therefore, is a
factor in determining the global temperature. But the concentration of CO2 in the
air and global temperature do not correlate well over the long term, indicating
that CO2 is not the dominant cause of today’s rising global temperature. The globe
is warming, but it’s not your fault. Carbon dioxide is critical to plant life and
must remain above about 180 ppm to sustain our only source of food. It is important
that we investigate these issues and carefully examine the data so that we can
prepare for the future, even if we find we are unable to significantly change the
global temperature.
What is your worldview? Do you trust that God brilliantly designed and created
everything and trust that He has your best interests at heart, or will you always
be worried that the planet is on the verge of going out of control? As you ponder
that, think of these things:
1. A nuclear reaction in the sun’s core provides us exactly the right amount of
heat, and the sun’s surface is the right temperature to provide us the visible
light we need.
2. Water, CO2, and methane from natural sources cause a greenhouse effect that is
estimated to raise Earth’s temperature by about 59°F degrees.14 Otherwise, Earth
would be frozen.
3. Plant life and animal life are totally dependent on each other. Plants grow by
consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Animals grow by consuming oxygen and
releasing carbon dioxide.
4. The oceans are a tremendous stabilizing force for Earth’s temperature, and they
contain a large reservoir of CO2.
5. The hydrological cycle of evaporation and rain provides a mechanism for
transferring heat around the earth and provides fresh water to plants and animals.
6. Clouds help control the earth’s temperature by reflecting some of the sun’s
radiation into space and by absorbing some of the heat radiated from the earth.
It’s all a part of a grand design. Evidence of God’s provision is everywhere. “For
since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and
divine nature have been clearly seen, so that they are without excuse” (Romans
1:20, NASB).
Footnotes
1. “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”
(Genesis 1:28, KJV; emphasis added).
2. Michael Oard, “Is Man the Cause of Global Warming?,” in The New Answers Book 3,
Ken Ham, ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2010); Oard, “How Much Global Warming
Is Natural?,” Answers in Depth 3 (2008); Oard, “Global Warming,” Answers (October –
December 2006); Larry Vardiman, “Evidence for Global Warming,” Acts & Facts 36, no
4 (2007); Alan White, “Should We Be Concerned About Climate Change?,” in The New
Answers Book 4, Ken Ham, ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2014).
3. “NASA—What’s the Difference Between Weather and Climate?” NASA, February 1,
2005, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html.
4. F.C. Ljungqvist, “A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-
Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia” Geografiska Annaler,
Series A, 92, no. 3 (2010): 339–351.
5. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Leo Meyer, et al, eds., Climate Change 2014, Synthesis
Report: Summary for Policy Makers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
accessed February 3, 2015,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr1.pdf, p. 4.
Emphasis in original.
6. D. M. Etheridge et al., “National and Anthropogenic Changes in Atmospheric CO2
Over the Last 1000 Years from Air in Antarctic Ice and Firn,” Journal of
Geophysical Research 101, no. D2 (February 20, 1996): 4115–4128.
7. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, derivative work by Autopilot, original work
by NOAA, accessed February 3, 2015,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg. Data are from J. R.
Petit, et al., “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the
Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica,” Nature 399 (June 3, 1999): 429–436,
doi:10.1038/20859.
8. L. M. Gerhart and J. K. Ward, “Plant Responses to Low [CO2] of the Past,” New
Phytologist 188 (2010): 674–695.
9. Photograph courtesy of Anne Hartley from J. K. Dippery et al., “Effects of Low
and Elevated CO2 on C3 and C4 Annuals,” Oecologia 101 (1995): 13–20. Plants are
Abutilon theophrasti grown at different [CO2] for 14 days under similar conditions
of water, light, and nutrients.
10. CO2 concentrations are measured daily at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Earth System
Research Laboratory, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html.
11. E. A. Ainsworth and S. P. Long, “What Have We Learned from 15 Years of Free-Air
CO2 Enrichment (FACE)? A Meta-analytic Review of the Responses of Photosynthesis,
Canopy Properties and Plant Production to Rising CO2,” New Phytologist 165 (2005):
351–372 and references therein; T. Grotenhuis, J. Reuveni, and B. Bugbee, “Super-
Optimal CO2 Reduces Wheat Yield in Growth Chamber and Greenhouse Environments,”
Adv. Space Res. 20, no. 10 (1997):1901–1904; K. L. Griffin et al., “Plant Growth in
Elevated CO2 Alters Mitochondrial Number and Chloroplast Fine Structure,” PNAS, 98,
no. 5 (February 27, 2001): 2473–2478.
12. Roy Spencer, “STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-
Year Means,” June 6, 2013, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-
climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/; R. W. Spencer and W. D.
Braswell, “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown
Radiative Forcing,” J. Geophys. Res. 115, D16109 (2010): doi:10.1029/2009JD013371,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf.
13. IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events
and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F.
Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, p 11.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf.
14. Qiancheng Ma, “Greenhouse Gases: Refining the Role of Carbon Dioxide,” NASA,
March 1998, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/.
Was Mammoth Extinction Caused by Rapid Global Warming?
by Michael J. Oard on November 28, 2015
The woolly mammoth is the poster child for the Ice Age just as the polar bear is
the poster child for global warming. A woolly mammoth is likely a member of the
elephant kind with long hair up to 1 meter long, a hump on its head and top of its
back, and a sloping lower back.1 It was once thought the woolly mammoths did not
have oil glands in their skin, disastrous in a cold climate, but better samples
show they did have them.2 The woolly mammoth lived all across the mid and high
latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the Ice Age. Both the Ice Age and the
many millions3 of woolly mammoths buried in Siberian permafrost, permanently frozen
sediment, have been major uniformitarian mysteries for about 200 years4 despite
numerous theories. Another type of mammoth, the Columbian mammoth, lived farther
south in the United States and Central America.
End-Ice Age Extinctions
Woolly mammoths lived alongside woolly rhinoceroses, cave bears, cave lions, saber-
tooth tigers, ground sloths, dire wolves, the “Irish elk,” various types of horses,
several types of bison, and many others. The Northern Hemisphere, even Siberia
during the Ice Age, was considered to be like the Serengeti of Africa. Dale Guthrie
of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks has called it the “mammoth steppe,”
characterized by a wet spring and a dry summer with tall grass. Except for the
carnivores, the Ice Age animals were grazers.
At the end of the Ice Age, many of the animals over 100 pounds (45 kg) as well as
many carrion birds went extinct or disappeared from entire continents. There was a
70% loss in North America, 40% in Eurasia, 80% in South America, 90% in Australia,
and only 20% in Africa. According to the uniformitarian paradigm, most of these
animals were extinct by the end of the “last” ice age. Today, secular scientists
think that within the past 2.6 million years of the Pleistocene there were about 50
ice ages of various severities.5 Between these ice ages or “glacials” were
“interglacials,” warm periods after the ice melted. According to them, we are
living in an interglacial period called the Holocene.
Uniformitarian scientists have argued over the cause of the mass extinction. Three
possibilities have been suggested: 1) climate change, the “overchill hypothesis”;
2) man killed them in a great slaughter, the “overkill hypothesis”; or 3) man’s
diseases killed them off, the “overill hypothesis.” Man is considered as a possible
cause because mass extinction happened only near and after the last ice age, when
man supposedly came on the scene. There is very little evidence for man’s role.
Only a small number of human/mammal interactions have been found, such as spear
points found in mammoth bones.
Animals Claimed to Have Died During Warm Periods
To make matters worse for the uniformitarian paradigm, the mass extinctions
happened when conditions were improving. The ice sheets were melting, the climate
was warming, and more territory was opening up. Mainstream science has always
believed the extinctions took place during cold spells with the last die off
occurring during the short cold spell of the Younger Dryas, except for Australia,
that ended about 10,000 years ago. But recently several researchers claim the
extinctions happened during warm periods.6 They now say most of the animals died
well after the worst cold spell, called the “Last Glacial Maximum” or LGM, which is
dated at 19,000 to 23,000 years ago and before the Younger Dryas.
Scientists recently discovered the existence of warm and cold periods during the
“last” glacial period.
Scientists recently discovered the existence of warm and cold periods during the
“last” glacial period. These warm and cold periods are of short duration,
supposedly on the order of a hundred to several thousand years long with the
Younger Dryas being the last (fig. 1). The cold periods are called stadials and the
warm periods interstadials. The evidence for these stadials and interstadials was
found in Greenland ice cores and is thought to represent “abrupt climate changes,”
a new paradigm in ice age research. The temperature change is supposed to be up to
20°C over much of the Northern Hemisphere and have occurred within just a few years
to a few decades.7 It is interesting that after this discovery, scientists found
stadials and interstadials in other records of the late Pleistocene, whereas they
were rare before.8 The researchers fit the extinctions into these abrupt climate
changes, mostly into the warm phases.9 But all these extinction dates depend upon a
complete sample of Pleistocene fossils and very precise dates. Although what
exactly would be an accurate representation of the samples from that layer would be
difficult to assess, we know at least that the assumptions on which the dates are
based are flawed, even if they seem precise.
GRIP and NGRIP Ice Core Data

Figure 1. Abrupt climate changes in the GRIP and NGRIP ice cores from Greenland
inferred by changes oxygen isotope ratios from 50,000 to 30,000 years ago within
the uniformitarian timescale (Wikipedia). The oxygen isotope ratio is believed to
be mostly proportional to temperature with more negative values warmer. Image
courtesy of Wikipedia.
Reporters could not help but throw in the global warming scare:
Although there’s still more work to do, Cooper hopes his findings might help to
illustrate the importance of considering our own climate today. “If we’re right,
and these warming events are the key problem,” he said, “it’s quite obvious that
the current global warming trends are very worrying, because they in many ways
represent the conditions of the start of an interstadial.”10
If we had no control over the past warming events, what makes people think we are
the total cause of global warming and can stop a supposed new interstadial? The
reality is that present-day global warming is extremely small, mostly due to
natural forces, and climate model projections are greatly exaggerated.11
Is Extinction During Warmer Conditions Reasonable?
Within the uniformitarian paradigm, the Northern Hemisphere glacial and stadial
periods were times of extreme cold, on the order of 10 to 20°C (18–36ºF) colder
than the present day climate. Logically, the extreme cold should have caused mass
death, but instead the new evidence points to extinction happening when the climate
warmed. It is good to remember the warmer temperatures in the mid and high
latitudes would not have been overly warm for the animals since the ice sheets were
still melting. Ice sheets would cause cold pools of air to form since sunlight is
reflected off of the ice. So to say the animals died from excessive heat, which
would not have been warmer than today, is unreasonable.
Post-Flood Rapid Ice Age Provides a Better Model
The uniformitarian paradigm of ice ages struggles with mysteries they have not been
able to resolve after 200 years of research. Changing the uniformitarian assumption
of millions of years and accepting a global flood provides a straightforward
solution.12 The conditions that existed after Noah’s Flood set the stage for the
Ice Age. During the Flood there was a tremendous amount of volcanism and tectonic
activity, which greatly tapered off after the Flood. The high amount of
particulates in the atmosphere from the waning explosive volcanic activity
partially blocked the sunlight for years. This made for very cool summers.
The oceans would be much warmer after the Flood from the heat that was added by the
fountains of the great deep and underwater volcanism. Warm oceans, especially at
the mid and high latitudes, had a very high rate of evaporation. The cool air over
mid- and high-latitude continents and huge evaporation from the warm ocean caused
heavy precipitation. The snow and ice would first build up in higher latitudes,
such as Antarctica and central Canada, the latter far from the warm, moist onshore
flow. The air is warmed by the warm ocean water, but as the air moves inland, it
cools. The lowlands of Siberia would not have glaciated because of warm, moist air
from the oceans, explaining another mystery of the Ice Age. Mild winters and heavy
precipitation would have supported forests early in the Ice Age because of the
onshore flow. The forests would give way to a grassland as the Ice Age wore on and
the air became drier due to cooler ocean temperatures.
In the post-Flood model, the winters would have been much warmer than they are
today and the summers much cooler because of warmer ocean temperatures and volcanic
particles. Around the globe there would have been far greater precipitation caused
by the warmer ocean temperatures as modeled by Dr. Larry Vardiman.13 Until the end
of the Ice Age, there was very little contrast between the seasons. For the first
part of the Ice Age the warmer winters allowed many animals to pass through Siberia
into the lowlands of Alaska and the Yukon. From there they would have traveled
southeast down an ice-free corridor on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, and
continued into the southern United States, Central America, and South America.
Eventually the corridor was blocked. Ice Age fossils give support to the mild
winters and the small contrast between the seasons, even at high latitudes, but
contradict the uniformitarian model.14
The post-Flood Ice Age was very dynamic.
The post-Flood Ice Age was very dynamic. As the oceans cooled and volcanism waned,
the climate trended toward the present. The summers became warmer and melted the
ice, causing sometimes catastrophic melting. The Lake Missoula flood is an example
of the extensive flooding that sometimes took place.15 Winters gradually cooled to
below today’s climate.
Freshwater tends to float on salt water, as noted when the Mississippi River water
spreads to off the coast of Georgia.16 Seawater is very difficult to freeze, but a
top layer of freshwater would freeze rapidly during deglaciation. The high-latitude
oceans would freeze rapidly, greatly reinforcing the already cold winters and
drying out the atmosphere even more. As the lower latitudes warmed, the higher
latitudes became even colder, especially with the presence of ice sheets. Because
of these forces, the late Ice Age winter climate would have been very cold and very
windy with “dry” storms and much blowing dust. These extreme storms would have had
a disastrous effect on the large mammals, causing the mass extinctions noted around
the globe during deglaciation.
At the end of the Ice Age, giant dust storms would have occurred in Siberia, as
evidenced by thick windblown sediments. These dust storms would easily cover up
dead animals and thus account for why the bones and tusks of the mammoths are so
well preserved. Moreover, the strongly developing permafrost and the cold air would
quickly freeze the remains within the windblown sediments. This accounts for how
they were entombed into rock-hard permafrost. Blowing dust would cause some
mammoths to suffocate and die in a general standing position as some have been
found (fig. 2).17

Figure 2. Summary schematic of how the post-Flood rapid Ice Age can account for all
the many mammoth mysteries (drawn by Dan Lietha).
Some carcasses, of which there is a very small number compared to the skeletons,
remained frozen with partially decayed stomach contents. The reduced state of decay
is mostly because elephant digestion takes place after the stomach.18 The remains
must be frozen moderately fast, but a snap freeze is not required. Some carcasses
show broken limb bones from either trying to extricate themselves from the dust
packing around them or by permafrost faulting.
Summary
The woolly mammoth, which lived across the mid and high latitudes of the Northern
Hemisphere, is one of dozens of animals that went extinct at the end of the Ice
Age. Uniformitarian scientists have been unable to explain this mass extinction.
Whereas animals were believed to have died during cold periods, a new theory
suggests instead they died during warm periods. However, this theory is
unreasonable because it is normally cold that stresses animals. With the existence
of ice sheets, these “warm periods” would have been cooler than or at best similar
to today and less stressful than very cold winters. The post-Flood rapid Ice Age
can explain the huge number of Ice Age animals because winters were mild and
summers cool early in the Ice Age. The mass extinction occurred because, near the
end of the Ice Age, winters became much colder and drier than today, causing
strong, windy dust storms. It is these powerful dust storms that can explain the
extinctions and the data from Siberia. Figure 2 summarizes how dust storms and
faulting permafrost can account for all the many mysteries of the extinction of the
woolly mammoths, especially in Siberia.
Footnotes
1. M.J. Oard, Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to
Their Secrets (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2004).
2. V.E. Repin, O.S. Taranov, E.I. Ryabchikova, A.N. Tikhonov, and V.G. Pubachev,
“Sebaceous Glands of the Woolly Mammoth, Mammothus primigenius Blum.: Histological
Evidence,” Doklady Biological Sciences 398 (2004): 382–384; S.R. Tridico, P. Rigby,
K.P. Kirkbride, J. Haile, and M. Bunce, “Megafaunal Split Ends: Microscopical
Characterization of Hair Structure and Function in Extinct Woolly Mammoth and
Woolly Rhino,” Quaternary Science Reviews 83 (2014): 68–75; Oard, “Woolly Mammoths
Were Cold Adapted,” Journal of Creation 28, no. 3 (2014): 15–17.
3. J.M. Stewart, “Frozen Mammoths from Siberia Bring Ice Ages to Vivid Life,”
Smithsonian 8 (1977):60–69; Oard, Frozen in Time.
4. A. Cooper et al., “Abrupt Warming Events Drove Late Pleistocene Holarctic
Megafaunal Turnover,” Science 349 (August 7, 2015): 602–606.
5. M. Walker and J. Lowe, “Quaternary Science 2007: A 50-Year Retrospective,”
Journal of the Geological Society, London 164 (2007): 1073–1092.
6. Cooper et al., “Abrupt Warming Events . . . ”
7. C. Hammer et al., Preface to special edition on ice cores, Journal of
Geophysical Research 102 (C12) (1997): 26,315–26,316.
8. Oard, The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and
Antarctic Ice Sheets (Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2005).
9. Cooper et al., “Abrupt Warming Events . . . ”
10. Abby Ohlheiser, “Abrupt Climate Change May Have Doomed Mammoths and Other
Megafauna, Scientists Report,” The Washington Post, July 23, 2015,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/23/humans-may-be-
off-the-hook-for-mammoth-extinctions-say-scientists/.
11. Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Exposé of Climate Change (DVD; Coral
Ridge Ministries and Answers in Genesis, 2008); Oard, “Is Man the Cause of Global
Warming?,” The New Answers Book 3 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), 69–79;
Oard, “Global Warming: Examining the Issue Carefully,” Answers, April–June 2006,
24–26.
12. Oard, Frozen in Time; Oard, The Great Ice Age: Evidence from the Flood for Its
Quick Formation and Melting (DVD; Canby, OR: Awesome Science Media, 2013); Oard,
“Where Does the Ice Age Fit In?,” The New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, 2007), 207–219; Oard, “Setting the Stage for an Ice Age,” Answers April–June
2007, 59–61.
13. L. Vardiman and W. Brewer, “A Well-Watered Land: Numerical Simulations of a
Hypercyclone in the Middle East,” Answers Research Journal 4 (2011): 55–74,
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/numerical-simulations-of-a-hypercyclone-in-
the-middle-east/.
14. R.W. Graham and E.L. Lundelis Jr., “Coevolutionary Disequilibrium and
Pleistocene Extinctions,” in P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein, eds., Quaternary
Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press,
1984), 223–249; Oard, “The Puzzle of Disharmonious Associations During the Ice
Age,” Journal of Creation 26, no. 3 (2012): 15–17.
15. Oard, The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood (Chino Valley, AZ:
Creation Research Society Books, 2004); Oard, The Great Missoula Flood: Modern Day
Evidence for the World Wide Flood (DVD; Canby, OR: Awesome Science Media, 2014); D.
Alt, Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humungous Floods (Missoula, MT: Mountain Press,
2001).
16. Hu et al., “Mississippi River Water in the Florida Straits and in the Gulf
Stream off Georgia in Summer 2004,” Geophysical Research Letters 32 (2005).
17. Oard, “Evidence Some Woolly Mammoths Asphyxiated from Dust,” Journal of
Creation 29, no. 3 (2015): 3–5 (forthcoming).
18. Oard, Frozen in Time.
Global Climate Models Are Improving, But Are Not Yet Useful
by Dr. Alan White on September 15, 2016
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
Climate change is potentially a significant issue for all the inhabitants of the
earth. If we are truly facing dramatic climate change, all of us will be affected
and some action on our part may be prudent, particularly if the change in the
climate is caused by human activities.
Are We Currently Experiencing Dramatic Climate Change?
Based on historical evidence and common sense, it seems clear that the global
temperature has been rising since the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago. A
concerted effort to directly measure the temperature of the earth began in about
1880. The data gathered from the land-based measuring devices over the last 136
years indicate that the earth’s temperature has risen about 1.3°F. There is some
uncertainty in these data due to changes in the surroundings of these measuring
devices and their distribution over the surface of the earth, but clearly the
temperature has risen in the past century.1 Nonetheless, a rate of change of around
0.01°F per year does not seem like a dramatic rate of change.
Are We Headed into Unchartered Territory in Terms of the Global Temperature?
Estimates of global temperature further back in time are much less certain than the
temperature data for the last century. Nevertheless, many scientists believe that
over the history of the earth, the global temperature and the CO2 levels have both
been dramatically higher than the present levels.2 So, in that sense, we are not in
uncharted territory, if those rough estimates are reasonably accurate.
These scientific models are based on proxy data, such as tree ring or ice core
data, not actual temperature measurements.
More recent historical observations indicate that a period from about AD 950–1250
was significantly warmer than the Little Ice Age, particularly in the North
Atlantic.3 This has been called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). There is
significant disagreement as to which period was warmer—the MWP or the present. The
historical evidence seems to indicate that the MWP was a little warmer,
particularly in the northern hemisphere, but many of the scientific models produced
by the experts predict that the current period is warmer. These scientific models
are based on proxy data, such as tree ring or ice core data, not actual temperature
measurements. These estimates of the temperatures before 1880 are based on rough
correlations between the proxy and temperature.
One of those scientific models resulted in the now infamous “hockey stick” diagram
by Michael Mann.4 The validity of this diagram is the subject of some controversy5
and a lawsuit. There is no way to settle this debate since we cannot know for sure
what the average global temperature was in the MWP. It seems reasonable to conclude
that the temperature in the northern hemisphere during the MWP was in the
neighborhood of the current temperature in the northern hemisphere and likely not
far different from the current average global temperature.
Why Is the Level of Concern over Global Warming so High among Some Experts Given
the Fairly Benign Temperature Measurements That We Have?
Climate model predictions are the source of a majority of the concern. Almost all
of the climate models predict a significant increase in the global temperature in
the future, and they include the possibility of a dramatic increase.
One of the important factors in these models is what climate scientists call
sensitivity. Sensitivity is a measure of how the global temperature will adjust to
a given change in the energy absorbed from the sun or lost to space. Lately,
sensitivity has been more narrowly defined as the temperature rise that will result
from a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This includes the
direct effect of the warming caused by CO2 and the further adjustment the climate
will make to this increased temperature. It is widely agreed that the direct
temperature change resulting from a doubling of the CO2 is 1°C, but there is
significant disagreement as to the sensitivity. The total change (sensitivity) in
climate models is estimated to be around 3.2°C ±1.5°C.6 This high sensitivity has
been derived from the small amount of fairly recent temperature data, less reliable
data from the distant past, and the climate models themselves. The high variability
(±1.5°C) is due to the poor understanding of some of the major climate factors,
particularly clouds and aerosols.
There has been a pause in the global temperature rise which was unexpected by the
experts.
For the last few years, the global temperature measurements have been on the low
end of the range for climate model predictions, and now the observed temperature is
clearly lower than the predictions. There has been a pause in the global
temperature rise which was unexpected by the experts. Based on my experience with
mathematical models for chemical processes, it is easy to see that matching
mathematical models to processes as complicated as the global climate would be very
difficult. To make an accurate model, one would need a tremendous amount of data,
preferably from many different climatic conditions, and a fundamental understanding
of all the major processes that are involved. At this point, we have neither. As we
get more and better data and improve our understanding of clouds, aerosols, and
albedo (reflectivity of the earth and the clouds), the models will improve.
The good news is that the improvement process is already underway. Some are
beginning to see that the sensitivities in the models are too high. The latest
report from the IPCC showed a lowering of the lower end of the range of
sensitivity. The predicted range is now 1.5–4.5°C, whereas the previous estimate
was 2.0–4.5°C—a small but significant move. Gervais also recently published a plot
of data from models published in the last 15 years, showing that the sensitivities
used in those models have steadily decreased over that time frame.7 So the
scientific process is working, and scientists are adjusting their models to better
fit the observed temperatures.
Perhaps the original models had too high a sensitivity based on a belief that
today’s temperatures are higher than those a millennium ago and that burning fossil
fuels was the cause. If that were true, modelers could have compensated for a high
sensitivity with too large a negative factor for sulfate aerosols. In fact, there
is some recent published data that indicates the factor used for aerosols was
actually too high.8 So lowering both of these factors may give us improved models
in the future. In addition, Gervais reported a 60-year cycle in sea level changes
that could help explain some of the temperature changes in the past 100 years.9
Addition of this factor to the models could improve the accuracy of the models.
Given the Uncertainty in the Models, What Is the Prudent Course of Action?
A number of experts in the field are calling for immediate, drastic action. They
believe that the mere possibility of “severe and irreversible harm”10 is enough to
warrant immediate, costly compensating actions. They are convinced human actions
are to blame for global warming and a litany of other problems.
“Though various natural factors can influence Earth’s climate, only [emphasis mine]
the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations linked to human activity, principally
the burning of fossil fuels, can explain recent patterns of global warming. Other
changes in Earth’s climate, such as shifting precipitation patterns, worsening
drought in many locations, increasingly severe heat waves, and more intense
Atlantic hurricanes, are also likely repercussions of human impact.“11
In my 35 years in research and development, I have sought to find what is true by
experimentation and thorough data analysis and to propose what course of action
should be taken. What is proposed here seems neither a reasonable analysis of the
data nor a prudent course of action. The analysis does not appear even-handed. In
the rare cases where the experts consider mitigating factors in this complex
problem, the mitigating factors were quickly dismissed as unimportant.12 The claim
that the harm to the environment could be irreversible seems particularly
exaggerated. Systems that have exhibited stable performance as the earth’s climate
has for the past 2,000 years are likely to be controlled by negative feedback
mechanisms, like your thermostat, and unlikely to have a tipping point.13 Besides,
if temperature and CO2 level were once higher long ago on the earth, it must be
possible for the temperature to decline, since we are supposedly cooler now than
ancient times by a wide margin.
These highly complex, integrated systems that are necessary for life are powerful
evidences of design.
It is important to remember that water and carbon dioxide are required for life on
earth. Water is necessary to dissolve the chemicals of life and to warm the earth
by the greenhouse effect. CO2 is required for plant life and, therefore, for animal
life, and it supplements water’s greenhouse effect.14 Water is the basis for our
hydrologic cycle and forms clouds that reflect the sun’s energy away from the
earth. Carbon dioxide is plant food. A significant portion of the green part of the
earth has become greener over the past 35 years, and 70% of that has been
attributed to an increase in atmospheric CO2.15 These highly complex, integrated
systems that are necessary for life are powerful evidences of design.
Conclusion
My belief is that an all-powerful Designer created the universe in a way that
changes in temperature and CO2 levels on earth are possible, but within a range
that will allow life to continue. The temperature of the earth is not as tightly
controlled as your body’s temperature, but the recent data are consistent with it
being controlled.
With further study and good data analysis, the mathematical models should improve
to the point of being useful. In the future, we should be better able to assess
whether changes in the earth’s temperature are a real concern and whether we can
significantly affect the temperature.
No matter the nature of the crisis, I believe the Lord has already instructed us
how to respond.
He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to
do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8 NASB)
We can do justice by doing our part in maintaining a healthy environment, and by
being good stewards of the resources we have been given. We can be kind by helping
those less fortunate than ourselves deal with climate changes and by educating them
in how the climate works. Finally, we can praise the Lord for His glorious creation
and walk in His footsteps.
Footnotes
1. Alan White, “Should We Be Concerned About Climate Change?” in The New Answers
Book 4, Ken Ham, ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2014), 187.
2. J. Veizer, “Evidence for Decoupling of Atmospheric CO2 and Global Climate During
the Phanerozoic,” Chemical Geology 161 (1999): 59. Dana L. Royer, “CO2 Forced
Climate Thresholds During the Phanerozoic,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, no.
23 (2006): 5665–75.
3. Alan White, “The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault,” Answers in Depth 10
(2015), https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/globe-is-
warming-but-its-not-your-fault/.
4. Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes, "Northern Hemisphere
Temperatures during the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and
Limitations," Geophysical Research Letters 26, no. 6 (1999): 759–762.
5. Ross McKitrick, “The Hockey Stick: A Retrospective,”, Chapter 14 in Climate
Change: The Facts, edited by Alan Moran (Stockade Books, New Hampshire, 2015).
6. Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger, “Chapter 15” in Lukewarming: The
New Climate Science That Changes Everything (Cato Institute, 2015).
7. Francois Gevais, “Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged by 60-year Cycle,” Earth-
Science Reviews 155 (2016): 129–135,
http://www.kin152.org/climatologie/challenge.pdf.
8. Bjorn Stevens, “Rethinking the Lower Bound on Aerosol Radiative Forcing,”
Journal of Climate 28 (2015): 4794–4819.
9. Francois Gevais, “Anthropogenic CO2 Warming Challenged by 60-year Cycle.”
10. Michael Mann and Lee Kump, “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change,”
Weatherwise, second ed., (DK Publishing, 2015), 210.
11. Ibid., 16.
12. See Mann and Kump, “Dire Predictions;” and Robert Henson, The Thinking Person’s
Guide To Climate Change (Boston: The American Meteorological Society, 2014).
13. White, “Should We Be Concerned About Climate Change?”
14. Water absorbs a significant portion of the infrared radiation emitted from the
earth’s surface. Carbon dioxide absorbs a little more of the infrared because its
absorption spectrum is different. Antero Ollila, “The Potency of Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas,” Development in Earth Science 2, no. 20 (2014): 1–10,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956207_The_potency_of_carbon_dioxide_CO
2_as_a_greenhouse_gas.
15. Z. Zhu, et al., “Greening of the Earth and Its Drivers,” Nature Climate Change
6, no. 8 (April 25, 2016): doi:10.1038/nclimate3004.
Get the Facts: Hurricanes and Global Warming
by Michael J. Oard on November 3, 2017
Featured in Answers in Depth
Abstract
Hurricanes, like Harvey and Irma, are not evidence of global warming, but their
effects are exaggerated by alarmists. The Houston flooding was due to the hurricane
being slow moving and the fact that Houston is easily flooded. This is supported by
statements from atmospheric scientists. The latest observational statistics on
global warming show that man’s contribution to global warming has been slight. We
must look at all the facts on environmental issues.
At-a-Glance
* Climate change alarmists exaggerate the effects of hurricanes.
* Houston is especially prone to flooding.
* Hurricane Harvey was very slow moving.
* Observations show that global warming has been slight so far.
* The climate simulations are too sensitive for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
* We are stewards of the earth, but we need to gather all the facts first.
Hurricanes are presently being used as the poster child for global warming, now
called “climate change,” largely because hurricanes are extremely destructive and
grab global attention. Like all other recent weather disasters, hurricanes are
touted as proof the climate is changing because of our love affair with oil and
coal. Hurricane Harvey devastated the Texas coast producing up to 50 inches of
rain. Hurricane Irma followed, soon after destroying homes, land, and businesses in
the northern Caribbean and Florida. The storms shocked the sensibilities of the
American people who are vulnerable to the incessant propaganda that the devastation
is a result of people (especially our politicians) not caring about the
environment.
Global Warming Hysteria
There is almost no end to the global warming propaganda that has ensued from Harvey
and Irma. In Politico Magazine, Eric Holthaus headlines his article “Harvey Is What
Climate Change Looks Like.”1 Even Pope Francis jumped on the bandwagon of global
warming and vented his wrath on “climate change deniers,” saying, “If we don’t turn
back, we will go down. . . . You can see the effects of climate change and
scientists have clearly said what path we have to follow.” He urged world leaders
to “listen to the cry of the Earth and the cry of the poor, who suffer most because
of the unbalanced ecology.”2 It is unfortunate he uses his position to favor
controversial secular ideas supported by dubious science.
Global warming alarmists focused especially on Houston because of the extensive
flooding. Unmentioned is the fact that Houston is very prone to flooding. It is
built on extraordinarily flat ground, and “most local waterways are slow-moving
creeks and bayous that wind their way through town and eventually trickle into the
shallow, marshy Trinity bay.”3 The city of Houston floods regularly, “but such
propagandists don’t know much, or anything, about the Houston floods of 1837, 1841,
1853, 1875, 1879, 1887, 1913, 1929, 1932, 1935, and so forth.”4 Floods of late are
more devastating than those in the past because the population of Houston has
soared to over six million. Many of the homes are built on flood plains. Parking
lots, sidewalks, and roads conspire to reduce the amount of floodwater that can be
absorbed into the soil.
Climate Scientists Respond
Bill Nye, who believes any anomalous weather is a sign of climate change, also
jumped on the bandwagon, but fortunately a reporter for TheBlaze checked what some
real climate scientists had to say.5 Dr. Ryan Maue, a Florida-based research
meteorologist, reiterated the caution expressed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when he said on Twitter that Nye’s comments about
the hurricanes were plain wrong. Dr. Clifford Mass, professor of atmospheric
science at the University of Washington went even further and was quoted as saying,
Hurricane Harvey developed in an environment in which temperatures were near normal
in the atmosphere and slightly above normal in the Gulf. . . . The clear
implications: global warming could not have contributed very much to the storm. . .
. There is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal
precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal
temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.6
Dr. Neil Frank knows hurricanes better than anyone else. He was a meteorologist at
the National Hurricane Center in Florida for 25 years and its director from 1974 to
1987. He is now retired and lives 40 miles outside Houston, where he had a close-up
view of the flooding from Hurricane Harvey. In an interview reported in World by
Jamie Dean, Frank points out many of the previous devastating hurricanes for
Florida and the Gulf Coast, beginning in 1886 when a record number of seven major
hurricanes struck the United States. A powerful hurricane swamped Galveston, Texas,
killing at least 6,000 people in 1900. These and many other disasters occurred
before major emissions of carbon dioxide. He goes on to mention Hurricane Claudette
in 1979 which stalled near Houston and dumped 42 inches of rain at Alvin, Texas, in
one day, which was (and still is) the record amount of 24 hour precipitation for
any location in the United States. This is close to the totals from Hurricane
Harvey which occurred in 3 to 4 days.7 With the exception of Hurricane Sandy, the
12-year hiatus between hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both of which blasted the Gulf
Coast in 2005, is significant. How would this hiatus be explained by alarmists?
Hurricane Sandy was an anomaly in that it connected with a mid-latitude upper low
as it hit the northeast United States.
Hurricane Harvey was also an anomaly. It did not have particularly strong winds and
it weakened upon hitting land, but it was caught in a very light steering current
aloft for three to four days. So, as it first hit the southwest coast of Texas, it
meandered very slowly with heavy rain east-northeast up the coast and inundated the
southeast coast, especially the city of Houston.
Global Warming Has Been Slight
Global warming is a fact. It is supported by warmer temperatures recorded over most
of the globe, the shrinkage of practically all mountain glaciers, and the decrease
in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean since about 1980. However, it is important to note
the amount of warming has been slight, officially about 1.6°F since 1880.8 Another
thing to keep in mind is that the temperature records themselves have many biases
toward warmth, and there are data-sparse regions. So it is possible to whittle
about 30% of the warming off these numbers.9 Regardless, the slight effect adds up
to some fairly dramatic changes, especially in the Arctic region where the effect
of global warming is about double. This is due to what are called “positive
feedbacks.” One positive feedback results from less snow and ice cover causing more
solar radiation absorption, which reinforces the warming. A second one is the
growth of “watermelon snow,” caused by algae that turn the snow red. The red color
results in more solar radiation absorption and is estimated to account for 1/6th of
the Arctic warming.10
Global warming is a fact.
This slight global warming has had no detectable effect on any severe weather
phenomenon. Statistics show that there has been no change in hurricane landfalls,
droughts, floods, tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, East Coast winter storms, heat
waves, or cold spells.11
Climate Simulations Much Too Sensitive to Increased Carbon Dioxide
Global warming has been slight, so why are alarmists so worried? It is probable
that their hysteria stems from computer simulations of climate, which alarmists
take literally. Many of these simulations are done by different organizations. To
work the simulations, the operator doubles the amount of carbon dioxide, the prime
greenhouse gas culprit, and leaves all other variables the same. When equilibrium
is reestablished, he examines the temperature increase in the simulation output.
The output results of all these simulations show an increase ranging from 3 to 8°F
with a few even up to 11°F. If these are accurate forecasts, it would indeed be
frightening.
These climate simulations are flawed because they are unable to take into account
the vast number of variables that contribute to our climate.
However, these climate simulations are flawed because they are unable to take into
account the vast number of variables that contribute to our climate. Just the range
of possible temperatures from these models should tip us off that the simulations
are imperfect. The simulations have great difficulty incorporating cloud effects,
which can be variable depending upon the type, height, and amount of cloud cover.
This is probably the most serious flaw in the simulations. The simulations also
have difficulty incorporating accurate effects of the oceans, such as sea surface
temperature and ocean circulation, which are major climate components. The models
also have difficulty applying the snow aging effect. Snow is highly reflective when
fresh, but with time the reflectivity decreases and the snow absorbs more solar
radiation.
Observations Should Be Our Guide
We have observations to guide us. First, there are natural processes of climate
change, including the amount of sulfuric acid in the stratosphere from volcanic
eruptions, oceanic oscillations, and effects of the sun. El Niño causes global
warming for a few years. Based on correlations of solar radiation, the increase in
carbon dioxide, and the yearly average global temperatures of the 20th century, it
appears that natural processes can account for 69% of the global warming.12 Since
these results are controversial, I have been more conservative by estimating about
half the global warming is due to natural processes, while man adding carbon
dioxide to the air can account for the other half.13 There are also significant
long-term temperature changes, unrelated to carbon dioxide, such as the Little Ice
Age which took place between about 1500 and 1850 and the Medieval Warm Period from
about 900 to 1300.
The climate simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of greenhouse gases.
Observations can tell us even more. The greenhouse effect of increasing carbon
dioxide, as of 2016, has increased 50% since the industrial revolution.14 Also,
other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, etc., have increased the
greenhouse effect 34% more for a total of 84%. The global average increase in
temperature, as of 2017, is now 1.6°F. So, for a doubling of greenhouse gases, the
temperature would rise by 1.9°F. But if half of this is due to natural process,
man’s contribution to greenhouse warming is only 1°F. Therefore, the climate
simulations are much too sensitive to the effects of greenhouse gases. Even the
lowest increase in the simulations, 3°F, is three times too high. And if one did
not believe there were any natural effects, the total rise of 1.9°F would all be
attributed to greenhouse gases, but this is still two-thirds the lowest estimate of
temperature, 3°F, from the climate simulations.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, accounting for around 2–10% (the exact
amount is unknown) of the greenhouse effect. The main greenhouse gas is water
vapor, which accounts for around 85–95% of the greenhouse effect—a good thing, for
without it the earth would be around 60°F colder.
We Are Stewards of the Earth
Much more can be said about the subject of global warming, such as the likely
hidden agendas of some alarmists who are willing to spend hundreds of billions of
dollars to “fight” global warming. This extravagant effort will do little to change
global temperatures. Restricting the use of carbon dioxide-increasing energy in
third-world counties will inhibit their development and result in more poverty.15
However, I want to end on a positive note. The Bible says we are to be stewards of
God’s creation: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to
work it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). We should care about the earth’s environment
and monitor the effects of man’s actions. We should be studying and learning about
environmental issues. But it is important to get all the facts first.
Getting back to hurricanes, tens of thousands of volunteers and many Christian
organizations have been mobilized to aid in disaster relief. Though natural
disasters are a consequence of the sin-cursed world we live in, God can still use
them to encourage us to minister to one another and spread the gospel. In addition,
he has given us the ability to study the atmosphere, understand its many
properties, and be able to make weather simulations that can predict the track and
intensity of hurricanes, as well as other natural disasters. In fact, the weather
models, different from the climate models, forecasted hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
even Sandy extremely well, days in advance. The advance warning greatly mitigated
the loss of life.
Footnotes
1. Eric Holthaus, “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like,” Politico, August 28,
2017, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/28/climate-change-hurricane-
harvey-215547.
2. L. Mowat, “Pope Francis Huge Rant on Hurricane Irma: History Will Judge the
Climate Change Deniers,” Express, September 11, 2017,
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/852663/Pope-Francis-Hurricane-Irma-climate-
change-deniers-latest-news
3. M. Olasky, “Wonderful World,” World, 32, no. 18 (September 30, 2017): 7.
4. Ibid.
5. C. Enlow, “Bill Nye Blames Powerful Hurricanes on Climate Change—Then a Real
Scientist Shuts Him Down,” TheBlaze, September 10, 2017,
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/09/10/bill-nye-blames-powerful-hurricanes-on-
climate-change-then-a-real-scientist-shuts-him-down/.
6. Ibid.
7. Jamie Dean, “Inherit the Wind,” World 32, no. 19 (October 14, 2017): 38–41.
8. “Temperature,” CRUData, United Kingdom,
http://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature (accessed October 10, 2017).
9. R. C. Balling Jr., “Observational Surface Temperature Records Versus Model
Predictions,” in P. J. Michaels, Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global
Warming (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 50–71.
10. Gerard Ganey, Michael Loso, Annie Burgess, and Roman Dial, “The Role of
Microbes in Snowmelt and Radiative Forcing on an Alaskan Icefield,” Nature
Geoscience 10 (October 2017): 754–759; and Laurel Hamers, “Now We Know How Much
Glacial Melting ‘Watermelon Snow’ Causes,” Science News, September 18, 2017,
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/now-we-know-how-much-glacial-melting-
watermelon-snow-can-cause.
11. R. Pielke Jr., The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You
about Global Warming, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010).
12. Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, “Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability?”
Physics Today 61, No. 3 (2008): 50–51.
13. M. Oard, Wonders of Creation: The New Weather Book (Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, 2015), 82–91.
14. Gunnar Myhre, Catharine Lund Myhre, Piers Foster, and Keith Shine, “Halfway to
Doubling of CO2 Radiative Forcing,” Nature Geoscience 10 (October 2017): 710–711.
15. David Legates and G. van Kooten, “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of
the Poor 2014: the Case Against Harmful Climate Policies Gets Stronger,” Cornwall
Alliance, 2014, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Call-
to-Truth-Prudence-and-Protection-of-the-Poor-2014-The-Case-Against-Harmful-Climate-
Policies-Gets-Stronger.pdf.
I’m a Climate Change Alarmist
by Ken Ham on July 1, 2019
Featured in Answers Magazine
How Christians should properly believe in 'climate alarmism,' especially about the
coming climate destruction.
We hear a lot from climate change alarmists these days. In fact, it seems every day
someone is on the news talking about this topic, even warning that humans could
become extinct within 12 years if we don’t deal with climate change.
Well, I admit it. I am also a climate change alarmist, and I do believe humans have
caused climate change. But 'climate alarmism' should be properly understood. Yes,
it’s true, we need to warn people about the coming catastrophic climate changes
that will affect all of humanity. We need to proclaim this from the rooftops. It’s
an urgent message. In fact, the Bible prophetically refers to its coming:
The heavens and the earth . . . are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men. . . . The heavens will pass away with a great noise, and
the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in
it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:7, 10, NKJV)
Now that’s the ultimate catastrophic climate change everyone should be aware of,
when one day in the future, Jesus will return and the earth (and whole universe)
will be judged with fire and God will make a new heavens and earth: “But according
to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which
righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13).
It’s important to understand that humans are the cause of this coming catastrophic
climate change. Because of our sin in Adam, we recognize that the whole creation is
now groaning, awaiting this massive change.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who
subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to
corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know
that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until
now. (Romans 8:20–22)
But even though the creation is groaning because of our sin (think of earthquakes,
tidal waves, hurricanes, floods, death, and disease), God gave us a promise about
4,300 years ago after the flood: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).
A similar promise was given by the prophet Jeremiah over 2,500 years ago:
Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with
the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also
my covenant with David my servant may be broken. . . . If I have not established my
covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth. (Jeremiah
33:20–21, 25)
Even though we live in such a groaning world, God gave humans dominion over the
environment, not the environment over humans.
So we can boldly proclaim that humans aren’t going to destroy themselves or destroy
the earth because God is in complete control and he will determine when the
ultimate catastrophic climate change will occur. And we can understand and believe
in climate alarmism in a biblical context.
In the meantime, it’s important to understand that we do live in a world where sin,
the curse, the flood, and the ice age (which was generated by the flood) have all
contributed to climate changes that have been going on during the past 6,000 years
of earth’s history. It’s also important to understand that even though we live in
such a groaning world, God gave humans dominion over the environment, not the
environment dominion over humans.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the
livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the
earth.” (Genesis 1:26)
As Christians, we need to have a biblically based worldview regarding environmental
issues. To have this worldview, we must understand our role as having dominion over
creation as it and we suffer the effects of sin, the curse, and past catastrophic
events (such as the flood of Noah’s day). The bottom line is that we are to live in
this world and use what God has entrusted to us for humanity’s good (doing our best
not to abuse it) and God’s glory.
And remember, humans are finite. Based on our limited understanding, we might not
know many factors, which can lead us to interpret past and future things
incorrectly. That’s why we must ensure that we have the right foundation for our
worldview, the foundation of the revelation of one who knows all things—the
foundation of the authority of the Word of God.
We will never sort out all the claims about climate change until we all agree to
begin with the right foundation—the Word of the infinite Creator God.
Ken Ham is the founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis–US. He has edited and authored
many books about the authority of God’s Word and the impact of evolutionary
thinking on our culture, including Gospel Reset and The Lie.
What Scientists Ignore About Climate Change
by Dr. Alan White on October 20, 2019
Featured in Answers Magazine
We cannot understand the climate change issue unless we ground our perspective in
God’s Word.
All-time record temperatures in Paris, fires in the Amazon, Mississippi River
flooding, the Maldives underwater . . .
Everywhere we turn, we hear warnings about serious threats to life on earth. With
each report, extremists demand immediate, drastic government measures to slow down
climate change before it is too late.
Most stories lay the blame squarely on us humans, particularly on carbon dioxide
(CO2), a greenhouse gas produced by our burning coal, oil, or natural gas. In their
zeal to protect the environment, however, few activists stop to question the data
that supposedly links human activity to a rise in global temperature or to a rise
in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Even fewer have taken the
time to consider how proposed restrictions on fossil fuels could make life more
difficult, especially for the poor.
Those of us in affluent societies tend to forget that the standard of living all
over the world is directly related to the availability of affordable energy. While
the cost of renewable energy like solar panels and wind turbines is declining
rapidly, it will be years before they are widely available at a reasonable cost.
With so much at stake, we must analyze the scientific data evenhandedly. If a
problem exists with human production of CO2, we must carefully consider the
consequences of our proposed actions.
To be sure, a dramatic increase in global temperatures and extreme weather events—
drought, fires, hurricanes, floods, and the like—would be devastating for life on
planet earth, causing loss of human life, property, and crops. But before we join
the stampede to restructure how the world generates energy, Christians need to
weigh factors that secular experts often overlook because they don’t share our
biblical worldview.
God Has a Plan and a Purpose for the Earth
It is easy for us as Christians to get so tied up in our daily trials that we
forget about the higher purposes of the One who created this world. God cares
deeply about the earth and its climate. The earth is actually mentioned in the
Bible’s very first verse: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”
(Genesis 1:1).
God had a plan and a purpose for the earth long before he created anything, but he
placed mankind at the center of his plan (Acts 17:24–27). While the earth and its
climate are important, human beings made in his own image are of much greater
importance to God. The earth was created to be a safe home for human beings and a
place where we would share with God the responsibility of caring for the earth
(Genesis 1:27–28).
But God didn’t create everything and then go on vacation. He is actively holding
his creation together all the time (Colossians 1:16–17). After Noah’s flood, God
promised the earth would remain habitable until the end of time: “While the earth
remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).
So before we begin weighing the complexities of what might cause global warming or
extreme weather events, we must first recognize several fundamental truths: God’s
supernatural creation of the earth and those created in his image; his promise that
the earth will remain habitable; and his intention to fulfill his higher purposes.
Our Limited Understanding of God’s Ordained Cycles
According to the secular ‘‘no God” story, the earth somehow was formed about 4.5
billion years ago as a molten mass, and it cooled over about 200 million years.
Secular scientists still struggle to explain the source of the water in earth’s
life-giving oceans, since it could not have been there in the beginning. According
to their view, all the changes necessary to evolve a watery world suitable for life
were unguided and completely random. Consequently, they fear the earth’s life-
support systems could easily get out of control and become hostile to life.
In contrast, God’s Word says the earth was covered with water from creation, and
the water obeyed God’s command (Genesis 1:2; Proverbs 8:28–29; 2 Peter 3:5). Unlike
other celestial objects, our planet is covered with about 326 quintillion gallons
of life-sustaining water on its surface, regulating our climate and providing for
our needs. The prophet Isaiah describes the water cycle beautifully, as it fulfills
God’s wish to nourish life (Isaiah 55:10–11).
The water cycle explains much of how our climate works, but we still don’t
understand many details even today. The most advanced climate models still cannot
accurately predict how clouds affect earth’s temperature. Thousands of years ago,
Job acknowledged this challenge:
Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable.
For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist in rain, which the skies
pour down and drop on mankind abundantly. Can anyone understand the spreading of
the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion? (Job 36:26–30)
We have long understood that water is integral to moderating the earth’s climate by
readily transferring the heat from the sun around our planet. However, until very
recently, water’s role as a greenhouse gas has been a well-kept secret in
contemporary climate debates. The naturally occurring water vapor in the atmosphere
has a much greater greenhouse gas effect than the CO2 from our cars and factories.
In simple terms, greenhouse gases act like a winter blanket over the earth, holding
in some of the heat that would otherwise be lost. Without the presence of water in
our atmosphere and its greenhouse effect, earth’s climate would likely be too cold
to sustain life.
This inconvenient fact weakens the argument for immediate action on climate change.
Water molecules are brilliantly designed for maintaining a temperate climate.
Before we look at the influence of man-made CO2 on climate, we must first recognize
that the earth has many complex systems in place clearly designed to keep us warm.
Our climate is miraculously stable, given that the earth is surrounded by cold,
empty space.
What Is Our Responsibility?
Just because God has designed a marvelous system to maintain a warm earth doesn’t
absolve humans of their responsibilities. What is our duty?
According to the Bible, we are to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26, 28).
Most take this to mean that we have stewardship over the earth. In this case, it is
prudent that we do scientific investigations to know how our climate is changing.
We should evaluate these facts from a biblical perspective. If we find that our
actions are truly detrimental to the earth, and particularly to its inhabitants, we
should change what we are doing.
Should We Be Concerned About the Rise in Temperatures?
Scientists agree on the facts, which we observe and measure. It is certainly true
that the earth’s temperature has been rising over the past few centuries since the
little ice age of about AD 1300–1850. It is also true that CO2 does act as a
greenhouse gas and is therefore capable of raising the temperature of the earth. It
is even true that the concentration of CO2 has been rising for several decades.
But just because CO2 and temperature have been rising together for quite a while
doesn’t automatically prove one caused the other. That’s the great challenge in
scientific research—to determine what are the true causes of the changes we
observe. In this case, that boils down to answering the question, “Is CO2 the
predominant cause of the current change in the climate?” This is not easy to answer
because we have so much more to learn about many factors that influence our
climate.
Notice in Figure 1 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has not always
correlated with the earth’s temperature.1 From AD 1000 to 1300, for instance,
global temperature declined while CO2 remained fairly constant. The earth’s
temperature also began to rise about 100 years before the carbon dioxide did. Our
understanding of this relationship is far from absolute, as many people claim. If
it were absolute, the two lines would correlate over the entire length of time.
Figure 1
Figure 1

When pondering this issue, keep in mind that human beings are responsible for a
fraction of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the entire amount.
Climate experts are doing their best—with the help of an armada of advanced
satellites and computers—to separate all these factors that affect global
temperature. Most now claim that the models are sophisticated enough to prove that
mankind is the predominant cause of the latest rise in the earth’s temperature. But
we still have ample reason to question these conclusions, which many say should not
be questioned, because of the poor correlation between CO2 and temperature (shown
in Figure 1) and the broad range of future temperature increases that current
mathematical models predict.
What About Extreme Weather Events?
In the discussion of human-caused climate change, one of the most popular claims is
the increasing number of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes,
droughts, and floods. But has the frequency of these events actually changed, and
does it correlate to the rising amount of CO2?
Advocates of immediate, drastic action often latch onto any extreme weather event
and claim that it was caused by climate change. But a growing new field known as
attribution science is attempting to develop a statistical way to connect a
particular rare event to a particular cause. To establish a connection, the
statistician must look at a sufficiently long period of time and a sufficient
number of similar, rare events (not a single event). For example, this year
researchers completed a long-term analysis (over 100 years) looking for any
relationships between the increase in hurricanes in the Atlantic and the rise in
the earth’s temperature. They found no significant correlation. The authors
concluded, “In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not
provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term
increase.”2
“The chaotic nature of weather means that it is generally impossible to say, for
any specific event, that it would not have occurred in the absence of human
influence on climate,” explains Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, which is
spearheading the development of these statistical tools. “In a simple analogy, a
dice may be loaded to come up six, but a six could have come up anyway without the
loading.”3
The correlation between human activity and extreme weather events seems to be much
more tenuous than the correlation between human activity and higher global
temperatures.
Everything Is Politics
No matter how much scientific data we collect or how successful future models
become at attributing blame for climate change, they do not tell us what we should
do. The underlying issues are moral and political, not scientific.
Should we waste natural resources, such as fossil fuels, or wantonly pollute God’s
earth? Of course not! We don’t need a scientific study to tell us this. We should
be good stewards right now because our worldview tells us so—whether we are
Christians who believe God is the owner of creation or are secular humanists who
are concerned about self-preservation. Science is just a tool to help us understand
the world around us and the consequences of our actions.
What if it becomes clear in the future that burning fossil fuels is seriously
harming life on this planet? We must weigh many complex moral factors based on our
worldview. That includes weighing the effects on people. What suffering would a
lack of affordable energy cause to millions, even billions, of people worldwide?
Who has the authority to make such difficult decisions?
As fellow humans made in God’s image, we can all share many common concerns. Both
Christians and non-Christians agree that we have a responsibility to care for the
earth (Genesis 1:26, 28). Most people would acknowledge that we must be careful
because of mankind’s tendency to act selfishly and abuse power. And most are wary
of unintended consequences of political decisions even if our motives are pure.
Yet Christians will never be on the same page with non-Christians because we have
such radically different starting points. The key to interpreting the scientific
data and determining whether the earth’s climate is out of control is found in the
light of God’s Word. Without this starting point, people will reach radically
different conclusions about the state of our climate and what, if anything, needs
to be done.
Those with a secular view have good reason to be concerned about rising
temperatures. In their view, the earth’s climate is uncontrolled and dangerous, and
humans are the only ones who can do anything about it.
In a biblical view, by contrast, God designed the earth and our climate, and he is
actively sustaining creation. Though the temperature of the earth will fluctuate,
the Creator has promised that the climate will remain suitable for human life until
he creates a new heaven and a new earth (Genesis 8:22).
Christians can be a voice of reason and hope to a frightened world. We should point
people to the wisdom found in God’s Word, which shows us how to tackle daily
challenges as well as the eternal issues that matter most. Through it all, we can
be confident that God will keep his promises. He always has. He always will.
Dr. Alan White earned his PhD in organic chemistry from Harvard University. He
worked for 30 years at Eastman Chemical Company, has been granted 45 US patents,
and is an author on 18 scientific publications. He now writes and speaks on
creation science.
Footnotes
1. Alan White, “The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!,”
AnswersinGenesis.org. Direct measurement of carbon dioxide and temperature was not
possible until recently. The earlier temperatures were estimated by using multiple
datasets that correlate with temperature. The earlier CO2 measurements were
estimated by analyzing the gas trapped in ice core samples. These data are much
less accurate than current, direct measurements, which appear on the graph
beginning at 1979. Currently, temperatures are measured by satellite, and CO2
concentrations are measured at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
2. Thomas Knudson, et al., “Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part
I. Detection and Attribution,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, (forthcoming),
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/#global-warming-and-
atlantic-hurricanes.
3. Friederike Otto, Rachel James, and Myles Allen, “The Science of Attributing
Extreme Weather Events and Its Potential Contribution to Assessing Loss and Damage
Associated with Climate Change Impacts,” Environmental Change Institute, 2014.
Chapter 16
Climate Change Facts: Should We Be Concerned?
by Dr. Alan White on October 2, 2013; last featured January 11, 2020
Featured in The New Answers Book 4
What are the climate change facts? Is a disastrous change in the climate looming?
Is man responsible?
There is good evidence that global temperatures have been slowly climbing for the
past four centuries and were slowly declining for many centuries prior to that. But
are these temperature changes a serious threat to our way of life, or are they just
a part of normal variation to which we can readily adjust? Sadly, our lives are
going to be affected whether global warming is a real threat or not. Global warming
has been blamed for almost every ill in our society.1 In his State of the Union
speech in 2013, President Obama said this:
It’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years
on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods—all
are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm
Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states
have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in
the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it’s too late.2
Within this short quote, many of the common issues related to climate change are
raised—recent events that are not necessarily indicative of a long-term trend, a
claim that the “science” is settled, and a warning that we must act right now. The
president followed these words by vowing that, if legislation were not forthcoming,
he would do all he could by executive order.
These new policies will almost certainly raise the cost of energy. Higher energy
costs will lower the standard of living for all, particularly the poorest among us.
Is a disastrous change in the climate looming? Is man responsible? Let’s begin our
journey to answer those two questions by defining our terms.
What Is Climate Change?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines climate change as a change in global or
regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late
20th century onward and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.3 Other dictionary definitions
are much more succinct and do not specify cause, direction, or time frame. It is
not surprising that there is some disparity in the definitions. With controversial
subjects, people often disagree on exactly what the words mean. For the purpose of
this chapter, the phrase “climate change” will be used to mean long-term changes in
climate (mainly temperature) without implying any cause for, or direction in, the
change.
Do Climate Change and Global Warming Mean the Same Thing?
Some use these phrases interchangeably, and others do not. Those who see the global
temperature as going only in one direction often use them interchangeably. However,
the phrase “global warming” was much more popular before 2006 and 2007 when the
average global temperature declined significantly. “Climate change” is much more
commonly used today and seems much less prejudicial. Therefore, “climate change”
will be used herein.
How Could There Be So Much Disagreement over a Scientific Issue?
When there is a lack of good data and when people view the data from two very
different perspectives, it is easy to have disagreement.
A Lack of Good Data
Measuring the average temperature of the earth is very difficult. At any point in
time, different parts of the earth are experiencing different conditions; for
example, day and night, summer and winter, cloudy and clear, arid and humid, and
windy and calm. This level of variability requires frequent measurements to be made
in many places over many years in order to calculate an average global temperature.
Temperature measurements have been made at land-based weather stations since 1880.
Two main factors have made those measurements less accurate than they need to be—
drastic changes in the immediate area around some of these weather stations and
poor distribution of weather stations around the earth. These facts led scientists
to push for temperature measurements from satellites.
We are in a very early stage in the process of understanding climate change.
Satellites are able to provide much-improved data over land-based systems. But even
the satellite measurements, which began in 1979, are not without their issues. In
2002, the satellite orbits were adjusted so the measurements could be made at a
consistent place and time of day.4 Clearly, only a few years of useful measurements
are not enough to give us a good understanding of climate change. That’s not even
enough time for us to be sure that these new satellite measurements are
sufficiently accurate. Lord Kelvin said, “To measure is to know.” We will never
have a clear understanding of climate change until we are able to accurately
measure the earth’s temperature for decades, if not centuries.
The lack of accurate measurements has not stopped scientists from interpreting the
data they do have. No problem. That is how science works. Scientists do their best
to gather accurate data and propose theories based on those measurements. They test
those theories by doing further experiments to see if the new measurements are
consistent with the latest theory. In the process of using this scientific method,
scientists learn how to do better experiments, make more accurate measurements, and
propose better theories. The problem here is that we are in a very early stage in
the process of understanding climate change. In early stages, researchers have a
strong tendency to develop theories based on their own worldview and to run
experiments designed to prove their theory rather than test it. The current bias
toward global warming will likely lengthen the time required to construct more
accurate climate models.
Two Different Views of the World
To those who believe that the universe is the result of the supposed big bang,
where invisible particles somehow came into being and randomly organized themselves
into atoms, molecules, stars, and planets, there would be no reason to expect that
the earth’s temperature would be controlled within a specific range. That life
exists at all should be considered exceedingly unlikely from this perspective.
Stephen J. Gould, an evolutionist, put it this way: “We are here because one odd
group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for
terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age;
because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years
ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a
‘higher’ answer—but none exists.”5
To those who believe that the heavens and the earth were designed and created by a
“higher” power, there is ample reason to expect that earth’s temperature will
remain in a range to support life. In fact, God gives us that promise in Genesis
8:22:
While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease.
Within this worldview it makes perfect sense that the earth would have a
temperature control system just like our bodies do, since God designed them both.
Has the Media Accurately Reported on Climate Change?
“When a dog bites a man that is not news, but when a man bites a dog that is
news.”6 Likewise, a stable climate is not news, but a dramatically changing one is.
In the late 1970s, numerous popular media outlets were reporting dire warnings
about impending climate change. An April 28, 1975, article in Newsweek began with
this phrase: “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun
to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food
production,” and ended, “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will
they find it to cope with the climatic change once the results become a grim
reality” (emphases mine).7 Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? We hear similar
pronouncements today. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama said in 2006, “Not
only is it [global climate change] real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise
to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the manmade natural disaster” (emphases
mine).8
The surprising thing is that the Newsweek article in the 1970s was referring to
global cooling, and then-Senator Obama was referring to global warming. Yes, that’s
right. The panic in the ’70s was that the earth’s temperature was declining and
would continue to decline. Today, the concern is the earth’s temperature is rising
and that it will continue to rise.
How Could Predictions About the Direction of Climate Change Be So Different After
Only 30 Years?
If, in the 1970s, you considered the data from only the previous 30 years, it would
have been possible to conclude that the short-term trend is cooling, particularly
if you extrapolate well into the future expecting that trend to continue (figure
1). Interpolation of data, trying to estimate a value within a range you have
studied, is challenging enough. But extrapolation of scientific data into a region
that you know nothing about is not wise.
Change in Global Annual Temperature

If today you again take the perspective of the last 30 years and extrapolate far
into the future, it is possible to conclude that the short-term trend is warming
(figure 1).9 Actually, over the last century, it appears that the temperature rose
from 1900 to 1940, declined slightly from 1940 to 1970 and increased from 1980 to
around 2000. It is easy to make headlines by drawing sweeping conclusions from
small ranges of data; however, it is still unclear whether these short-term trends
add up to an unprecedented rise in global temperature. Some climatologists claim
that the science was not settled in the 1970s and that they were not in agreement
with the popular press at that time.10 Today those climatologists are convinced
that the latest data, now that it has been corrected, is reliable, and the earth is
warming.11
Very recently, a few people have begun to conclude that we may actually be in the
early stages of another cooling trend.12 Those who suspect this generally fall in
one of two camps. Some are looking at a specific, narrow range of time (1998 to
2012) where there has certainly been no increase in global temperature. Others are
focused on solar activity. They are convinced that the sun is the major factor in
determining global temperature. This, of course, is a very reasonable conclusion
since almost all our energy comes from the sun. In fact, the number of observed
sunspots in this latest sunspot cycle is expected to be the lowest in many decades,
and the earth did experience the Little Ice Age at a point in time when sunspot
activity was very low.13 Has the global temperature started to decline after having
increased for about 400 years? Only time will tell. Frankly, with our limited
understanding of the major factors that affect global temperature, no one should be
confident in predicting the future global temperature.
What Are the Politics of Climate Change?
At present a number of expert climatologists and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change) appear to be in agreement that the earth’s temperature is rising
and will continue to rise. However, it is hard to know what the scientific judgment
of these individuals would be in the absence of overwhelming political pressure.
Their funding and their livelihoods are clearly affected by their stance on this
issue.
We scientists want to believe that we are unbiased—that we are strictly
interpreting the data and are not swayed by other factors. Are scientists different
from all other human beings in this regard? Obviously not. We are swayed by our
emotions and our beliefs, just like everyone else. So beware when scientists become
emotionally attached to their theories, ignore the uncertainties in their data, or
claim that “all reputable scientists agree” or that “the science is settled.”14
When one or more of these is true, you can be sure that the issue being discussed
is not purely scientific. When “the science” really is settled, the evidence will
be overwhelming, and there will be no need to claim that the science is settled.
While investigating any subject, it is interesting to follow the money. There is
big money in climate change issues. The person that is the most closely associated
with “global warming” is Al Gore. “Critics, mostly on the political right and among
global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first ‘carbon
billionaire,’ profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct
billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.”15 “Mr. Gore says
that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.”16 Gore’s many multi-
million dollar investments in green energy projects and his purchase of a $9M
ocean-view home in California are clear evidence of his financial success in this
arena. He will certainly have a good vantage point from which to watch a possible
rise in sea level!
Is the Truth about Climate Change Really Inconvenient?
It is tempting for each of us to focus only on what has happened in our lifetime.
However, for questions related to climate, we need a much longer-term perspective.
Have the global temperatures in the last few decades been significantly higher than
in the distant past? Unfortunately, there is no way to know for sure. No
temperature measurements are available before 1880. Scientists have tried to
correlate other scientific data with global temperature, but estimating
temperatures in this way is fraught with difficulties. Correlation of ice core or
tree ring data to global temperatures is full of assumptions that cannot be
verified. Figure 2 shows eight different attempts that were made to predict global
temperature.17 The dark line is the average of these data for what they presume to
be the last 12,000 years of earth history. Confused as to why anyone would be
convinced by these data? You should be. The most recent reconstructions are shown
in the insert of figure 2 for the last 2,000 years. These data have led many
climatologists to conclude that the climate is much warmer now than in the last
2,000 years.
Holocene Temperature Variations

Historical evidence provides a different perspective on global temperatures during

the last two millennia. There is good evidence that the climate in the Northern
Hemisphere was warmer about a thousand years ago—the Vikings were able to farm in
Greenland. After a few hundred years, they stopped farming due to a cooler climate.
The temperature continued to decline for a few hundred more years, and the Thames
in London began to regularly freeze.18 The decline in temperature reversed course
in about A.D. 1700. If this warming trend continues, it may again be possible to
farm in Greenland, and the sea ice in the north Atlantic may again be scarce.
Figure 3 is an estimation of the relative global temperature from historical
observations before 1900 and from weather station data after 1990. While we cannot
be certain about what was true in ancient times from either historical or
scientific data, the historical observations seem more reliable in this instance.
From these limited data, it appears that the global temperature cycles around a
mean temperature and has been slightly warmer in recorded history than it is today.
There is no reason to panic.
Global Annual Temperature Estimations

Are We the Cause of the Rise in Temperature Since the Little Ice Age?
Many believe that this recent rise in temperature is caused by an increase in
carbon dioxide due to our burning of more fossil fuels. Let’s look at some facts
about carbon dioxide and examine the evidence of its effect on global temperature.
The presence of carbon dioxide in the air is essential to life on earth. Without
carbon dioxide, there would be no plant life, and without plant life there would be
no animal life. Despite this, Lisa Jackson of the Environmental Protection Agency
declared that carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and deemed
that it was a hazard to human health.19 So is CO2 essential to life or a pollutant?
The government apparently thinks that it is both—essential at low levels and
harmful at high levels. But is there a level at which CO2 is too high? As with most
government regulations, this regulation preceded our understanding of the science.
While CO2 does influence the global temperature, the exact relationship has not
been established nor has the maximum CO2 concentration in air.
We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases act as a
blanket over the earth. When sunlight heats the earth’s surface, the warm earth
radiates some of that heat into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases slow the escape of
that radiated heat. You have been led to believe that the most important greenhouse
gas is carbon dioxide. It is not. Water vapor and clouds are actually responsible
for about 80 to 90 percent of the total greenhouse effect. That’s right, at least
80 percent. That is why clear mornings are usually much colder than cloudy
mornings. On clear mornings, we do not have that blanket of clouds to hold in the
heat. The percentage of the greenhouse effect attributable to CO2 is believed to be
as high as 20 percent by some and as low as 4 percent by others.20 Almost everyone
agrees that the percent of CO2 that is man-made is only about 4 percent of total
CO2. Therefore, the greenhouse effect caused by man-made CO2 is less than 1 percent
of the total and may be a small fraction of 1 percent.
Despite this, many scientists today claim that the rise in man-made CO2 is the
major cause of the rise in global temperatures over the past century. Just because
global temperature and CO2 concentrations have risen over the past several decades
does not mean that one caused the other. Figure 4 shows that the correlation
between the CO2 concentration and global temperature is not strong, particularly
between 1900 and 1950. The temperature profile in figure 3 also does not match well
with man-made CO2 levels because man-made CO2 was not high during the Medieval
Warming Period. These data are not convincing.
Global Temperature Rise vs. Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Is the Global Temperature Nearly Out of Control?

Climatologists’ greatest concern is that a temperature increase during the last few
decades might be amplified by positive feedback causing the global temperature to
spiral out of control. They are worried, for example, that a higher temperature on
the earth could melt more of the permafrost, release more CO2, and cause a greater
greenhouse effect. On the other hand, a higher temperature on earth could cause
more evaporation, more cloud formation, and more sunlight to be reflected away from
the earth. This negative feedback could moderate the global temperature. Which type
of feedback is more influential? Scientists are currently not able to quantify them
well enough to know whether the negative feedback outweighs the positive.
Engineers familiar with control systems are well aware that control systems
dependent on positive feedback easily go out of control whereas those based on
negative feedback generally do not. Since the earth’s temperature has been
relatively stable for many centuries, it seems more likely that the earth’s climate
is moderated by more powerful negative feedback systems.
It appears that a brilliant designer has designed a molecule that is both essential
to human life and essential for controlling the climate of the earth. Water is a
polar molecule that is able to dissolve salts, proteins, and DNA that are essential
for our cells to function and for life to exist. Water’s other physical properties
are just as critical to controlling the earth’s climate. It takes more heat to
change water from a solid to a liquid or from a liquid to a gas than any other
common molecule. The 310,000,000 cubic miles of water on the earth’s surface are
able to hold a tremendous amount of heat and provide great temperature stability to
the earth. Water can readily transfer heat from the earth’s surface to the air by
evaporation and condensation, a process which is the basis of the hydrological
cycle and much of our weather. Cloud formation may also be the key to a negative
feedback system that helps moderate temperature changes in the earth’s atmosphere.
Without water, the range of temperature from day to night and from the earth’s
surface to the upper atmosphere would be much greater. Clearly water is critical to
human life in many, many ways.
How Should We Then Live?
In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God commands us to subdue the
earth (see Genesis 1:28). Most interpret this to mean that we should take care of
the earth and be good stewards of its natural resources. If it were true that the
burning of coal, oil, and natural gas did have a significant negative effect on our
environment, it would make sense for us to modify our behavior. But it appears that
we are just in the upper range of a natural temperature cycle. It is not at all
clear that the small amount of additional CO2 produced by the burning of fossil
fuels is detrimental to the environment. It is humbling to remember that when God
was judging the earth with a global flood that He was creating inexpensive fuel
sources for future generations. Let’s obey God’s command and use our scientific
knowledge to be good stewards of our natural resources and preserve our environment
for the next generation until He comes again.21
Footnotes
1. For example, see Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, Dire Predictions Understanding
Global Warming (New York: DK Publishing, 2008), p. 108–139.
2. “Transcript of Obama’s State of the Union Address,” ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/transcript-president-barack-obamas-2013-state-
union-address/story?id=18480069#.
3. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “climate change.”
4. Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder (New York: Encounter Books,
2010), p. 13.
5. Stephen Jay Gould, quoted in James A. Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous
People with the Courage to Doubt (New York: Prometheus Books, 1996), p. 290; or the
original reference is S.J. Gould in “The Meaning of Life,” Life Magazine (Dec.
1988), p. 84.
6. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, 16th ed., ed. Justin Kaplan (Boston, London, and
Toronto: Little, Brown, 1992), p. 554.
7. Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975; available online at
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf.
8. Barack Obama, “The Coming Storm: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our
Planet” (campaign speech, Chicago, IL, April 3, 2006).
9. Data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt. These
data are updated from the data in J. Hansen, Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea,
and M. Medina-Elizade, “Global temperature change,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 103
(2006) 14288-14293, doi:10.1073/pnas.0606291103.
10. Mann and Kump, Dire Predictions Understanding Global Warming, p. 45.
11. Ibid., p. 38–39.
12. For example, see Larry Vardiman, “New Evidence for Global Cooling,” Institute
for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/new-evidence-for-global-cooling/;
and Larry Vardiman, “Will Solar Inactivity Lead to Global Cooling?” Institute for
Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/will-solar-inactivity-lead-global-
cooling/.
13. “The Sunspot Cycle,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml.
14. For a similar discussion, see Roy W. Spencer, Climate Confusion (New York:
Encounter Books, 2008), ch. 2.
15. John W. Broder, “Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor,” The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=0.
16. Ibid.
17. The original literature references for all these data can be found at Wikimedia
Commons, “File: Holocene Temperature Variations.png,”
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png (GNU
free documentation license).
18. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder, p. 2 and references.
19. John Broder, “EPA Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules,” The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html.
20. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder, p. 44; G.A. Schmidt, R.A. Ruedy, Ron
L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, “Attribution of the Present-day Total Greenhouse
Effect,” Journal of Geophysical Research 115 (2010): D20106.
21. For further information on this issue, see Michael Oard, “Is Man the Cause of
Global Warming?” in The New Answers Book 3, Ken Ham, gen. ed. (Green Forest, AR:
Master Books), p. 69–79.
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
The study of earth’s history is not a subject of idle curiosity. We need to know
more if we hope to solve the environmental crises that face humanity. That’s one
reason that a biblical perspective on history is so important. It helps us make
sense of the problems we face today and prepare for the future.
These days it seems you can hardly turn on the TV, go online, or open your morning
newspaper without being confronted with the idea of global warming. In his 2006
Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore
presents global warming as an imminent threat to the planet and paints an alarming
picture of a future in which mankind ultimately destroys life on earth.
But global warming is far more intricate than one 48-minute film can convey, and
most people are simply not getting some of the most important information.
It’s clear that global warming is a complex and emotionally charged issue, one that
cannot be ignored in today’s cultural and political climate. New claims and
counter-claims appear in the press with numbing regularity, leaving many Christians
uncertain what to believe. Rather than getting lost in the details, it is necessary
first to uncover the basic facts and then to understand the assumptions that drive
the interpretations of those facts.
Although many people may think otherwise, all of us have assumptions (beliefs) that
influence how we look at the facts. If a scientist believes in billions of years of
earth history, he will assume, for example, that polar ice needed hundreds of
thousands of years to build up over two miles in depth. Scientists who believe in
the biblical account of Noah’s Flood, on the other hand, believe the ice must have
appeared shortly after the Flood. Depending on their assumptions, equally skilled
scientists can reach very different conclusions.
In the global warming debate, it is important to separate fact from interpretation.
We hear a great deal about the dangers of CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases, but
rarely do we hear the facts behind the hype.
Assumptions and beliefs about the past play a major role in shaping our present
attitudes. In order to see past the hype, we must start from God’s Word, the Bible.
From there we can uncover the truth about climate change—the history, the causes,
and the answers.