The environmental movement has done with the whole global warming/climate change hysteria they are creating, and sadly, governments, as we see with the IPCC report just released, are colluding under the assumption that carbon dioxide is causing global warming (or as its now been called, climate change, just in case the temperature does go down, it can be blamed on anthropogenic [man-made] sources as well.) This fits the characteristics of a Big Lie and extortion because it is undertaken to achieve a policy goal that people would not normally agree to i.e., giving up economic prosperity to stop something that humans have no control over.
Looking closely at the IPCC report, we see that they consider it very likely that anthropogenic (human produced) carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing global warming. But there is a footnote to that very likely and looking at that we see it is the definition of “very likely.” The report defines “very likely” as “>90% chance of occurrence.” Now that still leaves 10% chance that it won’t occur, which means that there is a 10% chance that the experts are wrong and that their data has been contributed to chance.
What does all this mean? Well, as a student of the political science field, whenever there is a survey, they always quote those numbers at the bottoms of polls saying “+-4%, 95%” What they are saying is that they are 95% certain that the results can be within plus or minus of the number on the screen–the margin of error. So, as you hear the talking heads on TV state that it is a dead heat, that usually means that both candidates or issues are within the margin of error, so, either one could be leading. Well, the IPCC report leaves a 10% chance that they are wrong.
Being that political science has to be held to the 95% confidence interval to taken seriously, why then are we basing drastic economic and policy change on a 90% confidence interval? This question bears acute examination since the hard sciences have always been held to a higher standard. The FDA would not allow a drug on the market that kills 1 person out of every 10 that takes it. They consider that too great a risk. They might allow 1 in 100 and probably 1 in 1000, since the chance of death is 1% and O.1%, respectively, but certainly not 1 in 10 except in rare circumstances.
As Richard Feynman said when the TTAPS report came out about a nuclear war causing nuclear winter: “I really don’t think these guys know what they are talking about.” I echo the same sentiment towards the global warming scientists.
The Christian Response
After the creation of Adam and Eve, God told them to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Similarly, Adam’s first work in the Garden was the name all the animals. So, early in the creation account mankind has authority over the earth and is supposed to use the earth to his purposes for food and water, life, shelter and clothing. At the Fall, we see a merciful God (with foreshadowing that a payment is needed for sin) crafting animal skins to cover Adam and Eve instead of their leaf attire. So, certainly the picture presented in Genesis and the whole Bible is one of order and one of creatures worshiping the Creator instead of creation.
Further we see in the New Testament that as our bodies are the holy temple of the Lord, we are to take care of them and use them in service fitting to the Lord. Thus, sinful and destructive activities that do not present the glory of God to others and give Him praise should not be practiced. Some in the Christian history have said that this prohibits smoking; I do not see this as the case. However, I certainly do not recommend it nor thing that we can smoke to give glory to Jesus! I apply the discussion that Paul had with the Corinthians regarding meat sacrificed to idols—do as the Holy Spirit convicts.
The key word here is stewards. A steward is one who takes care of something for another. God has given us the ability to use the earth for our benefit but expects us to do so responsibly. Technological advances in the last 50 years make a lot of the environmental issues moot. However, a line from Casting Crowns echos the current environment Christians, in our response to presenting the truth, have to fight against:
As we’re sung to sleep by philosophies
That save the trees and kill the children