God’s Global Warming

By Brannon S. Howse

Christian parents need to make sure they explain from the Bible that manmade global warming is not going to destroy the earth. God-made global warming will—but it won’t be gradual. That may come as a surprise to you, but 2 Peter 3:7 clearly states that God is going to preserve the earth until He judges it with fire: “But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 


As Christians, we should take what is common to the culture and turn it into a pulpit. Christians should look for opportunities to steer conversations from the natural into the spiritual realm. The topic of global warming provides just that kind of opportunity. Explain to your unsaved friends that God is a just God Who must judge sin, and one day He will judge each individual who has ever lived. Those who have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and repented of their sins will pass from judgment into life.


We now live in a sinful and fallen world, but when God created the world and placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, it was perfect. God Himself said it was “good” (Genesis 1:31). However, because of one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and the consequences are that world is going from a state of order to a state of disorder. In Isaiah 51:6, the Bible says the earth will grow old and worn out like an old shirt: 


Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
And look on the earth beneath.
For the heavens will vanish away like smoke,
The earth will grow old like a garment,
And those who dwell in it will die in like manner;
But My salvation will be forever,
And My righteousness will not be abolished.


Sin wears down the earth and our bodies. Because of sin, death, disease, and dying entered the world. Genesis 3:17-19 recounts the consequences that God explained to Adam and Eve because of their sin: 


Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” 


The Myth of Manmade Global Warning


Global Warming is a hot issue (so to speak), not because it’s a real problem but because many would like to scare you into thinking it is. Consider this report: 


Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a “long-term” fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of “everybody” on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.

The New York mayor believes this even though more than 10,000 scientists don’t. For example, Michael Griffin, head of NASA, has said he does not see global warming as a threat. 


Global warming proponents base their belief on the alleged fact that temperatures are rising. But are they? Here are the facts:



Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the Global Warming theory is neither environmental nor scientific, but rather, “a self-created political fiasco.” Carter explains that “climate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles.”


According to Robert Essenhigh, professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University, the ice sheets at the poles have been melting since the early 1900s and the Earth’s warming had begun about the middle 1600s.


Some studies show that the earth’s temperature has risen, and others indicate it has fallen. Why can’t experts agree on the temperature? For starters, the earth’s temperatures are taken in two different ways, and one method is not as reliable as the other. Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University explains:


You have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it’s very difficult to eliminate this—what’s called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites…And if you look through the summary [of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)], you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary. These are the only global observations we have. They are the best observations we have. They cover the whole globe. They don’t cover the oceans very well, which is 70% of the globe. So you see, the [U.N.] summary uses data selectively, or at least it suppresses data that are inconvenient, that disagree with the paradigm, with what they’re trying to prove.”  


But regardless of temperature issues, we know the rise in sea level threatens much of civilization, don’t we? That would be “No.” In the April 16, 2007 issue of Newsweek International, Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote “Why So Gloomy” in which he pointed out that:

the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we’ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.


Not exactly a compelling reason to start building another ark.


If you’re beginning to get the idea that manmade Global Warming as we know it is a myth, congratulations. But have you stopped to wonder who’s behind all this myth-mongering?  There are three primary players:


1. Cosmic Humanists (New Agers). These folks believe in pantheism, that all is god and god is all and that mother earth should be worshipped. Radical environmentalists and animal rights extremists—many of whom come from this group—place more value on the earth and animals than on humans. 


2. Globalists and socialists. Globalists—many of whom haunt the United Nations—intend to erode America’s national sovereignty and create a one-world government. The United Nations’ Global Warming treaty—the Kyoto Protocol—would seriously damage America’s free enterprise system, and yet it does not even apply to some of the world’s biggest polluters such as China and India. 


3. Scientists and think-tanks. You’ve heard the old saying “follow the money”? When you follow the trail behind the GW myth, it leads you to “scientists” who are willing to say anything to keep government grant money flowing their way. Some studies place U.S. government spending on climate change as high as $4 billion dollars a year. Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, explains how this works: 


Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. Dr. Patrick Michaels, a leading opponent to the global warming scaremongers, calls it the federal/science paradigm. He describes it this way: Tax $ = Grants = Positive Feedback Loop to Get more Grants. 

Says Dr. Michaels, “What worker bee scientist is going to write a proposal saying that global warming is exaggerated and he doesn’t need the money? Certainly no one wanting advancement in the agency! There is no alternative to this process when paradigms compete with each other for finite funding.” The only ones who can openly oppose the party line of the day are those who don’t need the grants or who have some other source of funding. There aren’t many. 


DeWeese goes on to detail why there is so much money in the Global Warming racket:


The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. They want power in Washington, power on the international stage, power over economic development, power over international monetary decisions, and power over energy. In short, power over the motor world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media. 


The GW crowd has told us that manmade carbon dioxide is the reason for the supposed rise in global temperatures. However, Robert Essenhigh, professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University, gives the lie to their claim:


The two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However—and this point is continually missed—the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply ‘noise’ in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done. So, if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming.  [emphasis mine]


As I’ve pointed out, the temperature of the earth goes up and down in cycles. And the cause of the up-cycle is the sun. Perhaps we need legislation to control our solar neighbor in the sky? You might note, too, that—according to Access to Energy—Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are also warming up. It’s doubtful U. S. companies have caused that. 


Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington D.C. and who chairs the Institute’s Science Advisory Board, gave a lecture on February 12, 2008 at the University of Texas entitled, “Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story about Climate Change.” Dr. Baliunas believes the warming and cooling of the earth is more related to solar variability than it is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In other words, the increase and decrease in solar output has led to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth.


So if you think the variation of temperature by a degree or two in one way or another is worthy of destroying America, free enterprise, and our national sovereignty, then hop on the band wagon. Otherwise, keep your cool, and don’t move your membership to the Watermelon Church.


Copyright 2012 ©Brannon Howse. This content is for Situation Room members and is not to be duplicated in any form or uploaded to other websites without the express written permission of Brannon Howse or his legally authorized representative. 


WorldviewFinancialTV.com Banner