Do Those Who Deny that Man-Made Global Warming is a Serious Threat Practice Psuedoscience?

by Jared Moore on January 25, 2013 · 59 comments

This article was originally posted at my site. Only some of my articles are posted on SBC Voices. If you would like access to all of my articles, you can follow my feed here. You can also connect with me on TwitterFacebook, and Google+.

At the recent national Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference in November 2012 in Milwaukee, WI, E. Calvin Beisner, Richard Bauckham, Russell Moore, and Douglas Moo spoke on the issue of Creation Care. You can find their lectures here: 1) E. Calvin Beisner, 2) Richard Bauckham, 3) Russell Moore, and 4) Douglas Moo. They also participated in a panel discussion (video included below).

In the panel discussion, I thought Bauckham misrepresented Beisner. I also thought Moo and Bauckham should have answered why they believed certain scientists over others. Bauckham dismissed Beisner’s references to other Scientists as practicing pseudo-science. I think this is an unfair, unwarranted, and unproven accusation. If Moo and Bauckham make an argument in the fields of Old or New Testament or Theology, they expect grace from those who read their writings; however, these men did not show grace to the so-called minority Scientists who disagree that global warming is a coming crisis if humans do not make some serious changes. Their negative example encourages me to do a better job in trying to understand those I disagree with. I should seriously consider the claims of others instead of dismissing their arguments just because they may affirm a minority position. Remember Martin Luther.

Zondervan recorded the plenary sessions, and offers them here. The panel discussion starts at 01:59:20. *I’m surprised they put E. Calvin Beisner and Richard Bauckham beside each other. They strongly disagree, especially Bauckham towards Beisner.

This article was originally posted at my site. I’m married with three children, an SBC pastor, a PhD student at SBTS, and an average Southern Baptist. I’ve authored two books. You can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and YouTube.

1 Jon January 25, 2013 at 7:19 pm

I’ve heard there’s disagreement among scientists as to the so-called global warming phenomenon. So no, I wouldn’t think those who reject the idea are pseudo-scientists. If some scientists believing the phenomenon exists are confronted with others who don’t and who also happen to be Christian, they may suppose that’s the reason.

2 theoldadam January 26, 2013 at 12:29 am

Those who believe in that scam are misled by faulty and rigged, yes rigged data.

It’s a giant scam.

Go to for the complete picture and both sides of the story.

3 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 9:27 am

There are a variety of reasons to believe one scientist over another–just as there are a variety of reasons to believe one theologan over another. Generally scientists who support climate change are believed over those who do not because they have both a better reputation in the scientific community and they have logic supporting their point of view.

In some cases, “more credible scientists” have less of a conflict of interest than some who are believed less. If a scientist is employed by an organization funded by a fuel that produces more carbon dioxide for the amount of energy it releases–well, you always know which side of the discussion they are going to be on. When they joined that organization, they did it either because that was the way they believed or they are willing to produce the point of view of the organization who pays them.

But look at the logic–we will come back to the models in a while. There is universal agreement that carbon dioxide (and a number of other molecules) reduce the amount of heat that is radiated from the earth into the cold volume which is the universe. I don’t know how you can conclude that if the amount of heat lost from the earth is decreased, the temperature on the earth will stay the same. It will warm up.

Similarly, I don’t understand how you would expect the climate to stay the same if the earth warms. There must be changes.

Now you get to the models. We recognize that weather is not certain. Reports are given as “probabilities.” Few of us can remember when the weather man had to say whether it would rain or not–and it seemed that he was often wrong. Then someone decided that the weather man could just let the public deal with the same probabilities that the weather man had to deal with and we got probabilities–and the responsibility to decide for ourselves if we were going to carry an umbrella or not.

While the events that produce weather are somewhat understood and predictable a few days out, the events that produce climate are not so clear. There was an article in Scientific American that hypothesized that the Gulf Stream did not directly cause Europe (western) to be relatively warmer than similarly positioned portions of the planet. The Gulf Stream instead caused weather patterns that caused the favorable winters. These patterns must be fairly vague since they have not been clearly seen. But if this is the case, then European climate will be better understood. Or it may be that is just not the case at all.

But the better models of climate say that in the event of warming, the weather will become both warmer and probably include more extreme events.

If we believe these models (or if we don’t), then what should we do? My conviction is that we should do what we should be doing anyhow. We should be trying to manage our lives in a way that minimizes (reasonably) the resources that we consume. The earth’s resources that we remove and put to use are not being renewed.

4 Randall Cofield January 26, 2013 at 10:18 pm


We should be trying to manage our lives in a way that minimizes (reasonably) the resources that we consume. (emphasis added)

If “reasonable” remedies were all that the global warming alarmists were promoting, I’d get on their train with them…

That ain’t what they are sellin’, brother.

5 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm

I don’t think that it matters to global warming what we do personally or even what the US does. As I have said before, I think that China and India are going to run the experiment regardless of what we do.

Maybe we should “bank” our money that we would spend to try to reduce the problem and use it to help those who have weather problems in days to come.

I did not claim to offer a solution, I just suggested what I think I try to do–and what I recommend to others. Between the recession and switching to natural gas (along with investment in renewables) the US’s carbon dioxide production is down some.

6 John Fariss January 26, 2013 at 11:10 am

What I do not understand–and if someone would explain to me I would appreciate–is (1) why so many evangelicals disagree with the concept of human-induced climate change, and (2) why so many in the conservative evangelical community disagree so violently. Just reading commentrs from “theoldadam” for instance not only reveals his position but a passion against the position, and it is the sort of emotional response I frequently see. Is it theological? It is hard for me to see that as the reason for the disagreement, much less for the passion; but if it is the reason, why the passionate disagreement, as if to accept human induced climate change is an insult to God and an effront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Surely there must be some other factors. Can any of you who are so opposed to the concept please explain it to me?


7 theoldadam January 26, 2013 at 8:10 pm


I have studied both sides of the argument for years. I used to have something like 50 posts on the topic on my blog. I recently took them all down (all the global warming posts) because I didn’t want them to be a hinderance to the real goal of my blog and that being the proclamation of the pure gospel.

Suffice it to say, that if anyone would give the nay side 25% of the time that the pro side receives, they would believe that the science is not at all settled and that a lot of data cooking is going on (proven) by the pro side.

8 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 9:24 pm

How about the logic above? I’m sure I left something out.

If the fraction of nay-sayers was 25%, you would get your time–but it is way less. And the small fraction that seems to not believe in warming is often seriously compromised. Beisner is a good example of that.

9 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 9:39 pm

John, I think it is because the anti-warmers spend too much time listening to Rush and his friends. Global warming has become something that was promoted by the enemy (Gore/Obama/etc) and it has been belittled for years on conservative talk radio. Progress has been typical of science that is being watched too closely. There are three steps forward and one to the side or back. All the side and back steps get the full treatment. Those who listen to that sort of rant for hours a day (no trouble to do in the Houston area) eventually become passionate about disagreement–or maybe they were bent that way to begin with.

10 Jess Alford January 26, 2013 at 12:11 pm

John Fariss,

There are conservative Christian values, which is good.
There are conservative business values, which is bad.

Business thinks buck, it costs more to regulate what goes into
the land, air, and water. This is it, pure and simple.

We Christians, confuse the two and try to combine them.

Therefore, conservative Christian=big business.

11 Jess Alford January 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm

John Fariss,

I was talking to an owner of an automobile body shop. While we were talking, we had a light shower of rain. We went outside, and he said, Jess I want to show you something. We looked at the drops of water
that were on the hoods of the vehicles. He said you cannot see them,
but there are particles in these drops of water from polution in the atmosphere. These particles heat up and pit the paint. He also showed me how to look at the pits at an angle with the sun shining on them.
I could see millions of these pits in the paint.

Pollution is real and it does damage to everything including our bodies.
Doctors tell us this, there is no way to get out of this fact.

Conservative Christian= Conservative big business and it’s polution.

These two should be separated.

12 Truth Unites... and Divides January 26, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Do Those Who Deny that Man-Made Global Warming is a Serious Threat Practice Psuedoscience?

Do Those Who Deny neo-Darwinian Macro-Evolution a Serious Threat to Society and to the intellectual and psychological development of children with their obstinate practice of Creationism Psuedoscience?

13 Ben Coleman January 26, 2013 at 3:06 pm

One thing that strikes me on both sides of the argument is the continued pervasiveness of what C. S. Lewis referred to as ‘Bulverism’ in public discourse. You don’t try to prove your opponent is wrong, you blithely assume they’re wrong and dismiss their arguments as the result of whatever motive you can manage to speculate on (which further plays on the human tendency to speculate and then blithely assume your speculations must be true, but that’s another story). The warmists must be socialists using environmentalism to push their agenda. The anti-warmists must be in the pay of or influenced by businesses that stand to lose money. But you don’t get to truth by speculating on the motives of the arguers.

As Lewis put it, “Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs”. As usual, we’re busy proving that in spades.

14 Jim Pemberton January 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm

Good observation, Ben. Starting from what you wrote here, I’ll make some observations.

First, we know that real pollution causes local environmental problems and we should be concerned as Christians that each of us take care of what we have been given to take care of. The pollution in the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland is a famous example. The air quality in Peking is a more recent example.

Second, we know that there are politically motivated alarmists. Government grants come with as many strings attached as industrial grants. Back in the 70s, the alarmists were saying that pollution was causing a great global ice age. More recently, we know that the story has made a 180 and that pollution was causing global warming. Now that the actual evidence hasn’t been supporting it very well, the story is changing again and the key term is becoming “man-made climate change”. The political motivation has more to do with being able to fleece private industry. Without going into detail (I still have a job), I’ve seen how this works first hand.

Third, some scholars are taking the environmental alarmism to its natural conclusion and calculate that the population of humans in the world is too many and that we need to take measures to severely limit the human population (by forced sterilizations, euthanasia, etc) before Mother Nature degrades into a dystopian ecology that limits the human population “the hard way”. As Christians we need to ask how such measures fit within a Christian worldview, if the science is certain enough to start killing people who shouldn’t survive so that the rest of us can survive, if forced sterilizations fit with the command to populate the world, how that command fits in what we believe to be an overpopulated world, etc. Policymakers are already talking about such things and we need to be prepared to answer them as Christians.

15 Jess Alford January 26, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Jim Pemberton,

I don’t think we have a population problem, it’s just that everyone is trying to live in the same place. Look at the cities compared to the rural areas. Folks need to move to places like Iowa and listen to Dave Miller preach.

16 Jim Pemberton January 26, 2013 at 11:26 pm

I don’t think we yet have a population problem either, but many people do and the policies are sure to follow.

17 Bennett Willis January 27, 2013 at 12:35 am

Who is likely to impose a population reduction policy? The UN?

The “developed world” and anyone close to developed is at or below replacement numbers. China is at close to 1 birth/woman through policy. US rates are at replacement values–or below.

I don’t see India doing it because of cultural issues and Africa seems to lack the government strength to impose any policy on much of anything.

18 Jim Pemberton January 27, 2013 at 2:14 am

Oh, it won’t happen uniformly. It’s like environmental legislation. The US is better about it than China, for example, and California is crazy (spill a drop of oil on the ground and you have to send a cubic meter of soil or something like that away to have it cleaned… unless you are a movie maker).

In fact, population control has already been with us. That’s part of what abortion is all about. China is more overt than we are with their forced abortions, but our figures are astonishingly high. The original purpose for pushing abortion in the US was originally cloaked eugenics. Population control after the baby boom has been the argument to keep it going. The popular arguments are given simply to make it more palatable to the population in general. That’s why all us Christians making ethical arguments against it have been a burr in their saddle. They think it’s ethical to keep the population down by reducing the birth rate, but they’ll never make that argument publically. The reason they think it’s ethical is because they believe that it’s more humane to kill a “few” children in the womb than to lose everyone when an overpopulated earth upsets the ecological balance for good. As far as they are concerned, we’re like a deer population that needs to be thinned by hunters to keep the population healthy. Don’t look for legislators to tell us the real reasons why they pass distasteful laws. But they are making the case in academia now to start making population control more acceptable among among us commoners for when they feel the need to pass more overt laws. You don’t have to believe me now, but you will believe me when you see it.

That’s in the US. South america and Africa have their own brands of population control like naturally harsh environments or genocidal maniacs. If anything, India is proof that we have a much higher threshold for sustaining a population than higherups in the US want to believe. But their poverty level is pretty high (or you could say that their standard of living is pretty low). You can’t tax people who have nothing to tax or take care of that many people when they demand that their representatives give them a better life. Most people in India simply get by with far less than what we are accustomed to. Europe has bigger fish in the pan and Islam seems to be a breeding machine right now. (One good way for a patient group of immigrants to take over a country is to out-populate the native citizens.)

19 Bennett Willis January 27, 2013 at 5:16 pm

Jim, this is simply not true.

20 Bennett Willis January 27, 2013 at 5:38 pm

I went to a seminar at Rice University (a more liberal place is hard to find). One set of speakers made the case that the earth could readily support a population of about 9 billion as far as food is concerned. Then they said that they did not expect that the population would reach that level because by some date (2040 or so) we (the world) would have reached a level of prosperity that would allow women to reduce the number of children that they have.

If you look at the birth rate in France (for example) I think that you will find that the rate among Muslim women is dropping toward that of the rest of the population.

While the original proponents of birth control had some of their philosophy based in eugenics, the current group hardly know the meaning of the word. You are basing your present opinions on old data.

Somewhat to my surprise, Brazil has a birth rate of 1.87. And most of the rest of South America is in the 2.1-2.2 range. China’s population will continue to climb until the group that resulted from the former birth rate of close to 6 work their way through the system and then (along with Europe) the population will drop significantly. Even India’s birth rate is well below 3 and with their “sex selective abortions,” it is functionally lower than the number of births that occur.

There is going to be a significant adjustment in the world population over the next 100 years and most of it will be from fertility control rather than increasing births.

21 Jim Pemberton January 27, 2013 at 11:34 pm

I don’t think you are quite following what I’m saying, and perhaps I’m not following what you are saying. You said these two things:

“Who is likely to impose a population reduction policy?”

“There is going to be a significant adjustment in the world population over the next 100 years and most of it will be from fertility control rather than increasing births.”

In context, the first seems to be a rhetorical question indicating that you don’t think that legislators will impose population reduction. The second seems to indicate that you believe that “fertility control” will happen. These two statements seem to conflict with each other.

So, I offer a short list of online information. I haven’t fact-checked all of it, but altogether it seems that there is, and has been for some time, a global movement to mitigate what is believed to be overpopulation through legislative and social actions. I’ll not intentionally embed links in an attempt to prevent the spam bot from blowing up. Just cut and paste the text for each line into your browser.

22 theoldadam January 26, 2013 at 8:21 pm

This is very interesting:

17 accredited scientists disagree about “climate change” (as if the climate has ever been ‘stable)

Oops…I got that number wrong, it is 700 scientists who say that MMGW is not happening.

23 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 9:55 pm

I suppose that I should have just put in the link. Morano is the assembler of TOA’s link above. If you Google his name, this seems to be typical of the first several hits that turn up: Marc Morano is a wingnut propagandist and global warming denier. He kicked off his career by learning the tricks of the trade as a producer on Rush Limbaugh’s show in the early ’90s. He then went on to work for L. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. In 2004, he was one of the first “reporters” to hype the John Kerry swiftboating story. In 2006, preeminent denier and wingnut Jim Inhofe hired Morano to be his Bull…r-in-Chief “Director of Communications.” Morano’s position got him into a number of climate conferences and policy hearings. He also put out a bogus report about 700+ number of scientists who “disagreed” with the consensus. Some scientists called for his resignation due to the number of distortions and lies about their work he promulgated. In 2009, Morano left Inhofe and became the proprietor of the website Denial Depot Climate Depot. Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, an Exxon funded think tank.[1] Supposedly, he exposes the “lies” of the “warmists” and “scientific McCarthy-ites” who do research in that inconvenient thing called science. The site is really more of a denialist-style Drudge Report that links to whatever nonsense it can find.

In 2010, Morano was given the “Petr Beckmann award” by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Apparently, he thinks this is something to be proud of.[2]

This is a fine example of blaming the messenger. All the pro-warmers should be ashamed of bashing a fellow with these impecable credentials.

24 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Here is the link to the award and what it was given for.

25 Bennett Willis January 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm

And the link to the above comment. Dave should probably delete my comment and just leave this link.

26 theoldadam January 27, 2013 at 11:58 am

In California you can’t build a new home with a wood burning fireplace. In certain cities you can’t use your wood burning fireplace at certain times. You can’t buy certain kinds of light bulbs here any longer. Businesses have left the state in droves because of the heavy-handed environmental regulations and onerous taxes resulting from the eco-wacko lobby here.
Just a few outcomes of the fear that many do-gooders spread and ill-conceived notion that man can actually control the weather.

This scam is going to cost us all, a lot, in money, and in freedom…with virtually no benefit other than to make the do-gooders feel good about themselves and justify themselves.

27 Bennett Willis January 27, 2013 at 6:11 pm

TOA, we can’t buy inefficient light bulbs (ratio of electricity to light). If you believe the packaging text on the bulbs you can buy, they are a good economic deal. You might look at this as being sort of like the mpg requirements on cars. There is nothing wrong with living efficiently and it is to our country’s advantage if we do (for most things). Of course we need to keep buying stuff of some sort–just not inefficient stuff.

Look at the logic. You seem to refuse to do that. You seem to be an example of one who when his belief is challenged (or refuted) simply comes back more determined that he is right.

I did not know about rules that you can’t have a wood burning fireplace in CA, but I can understand completely why you should not burn them in certain times and locations. I was in Los Angeles once and got off on Mulhollan (spelling?) Drive where there were no houses. We got up to the level of the top of the smog. I looked across the city through a bright yellow layer of “air.” When the area gets into that shape, you should not be burning anything in that area that you can avoid–you should burn it outside the area and bring the energy in. Salt Lake City is having this issue (or was) at this time.

There has been a dramatic reduction in pollution in this country in the last 30-40 years. It has come largely as the result of two forces–increased efficiency and regulation. The amount of sulfur that went into the atmosphere (and came out as acidity in rain) has gone down significantly. Conversion of home heating from coal to natural gas makes a huge difference. Remember the fogs that London used to get because of burning coal in millions of home furnaces? Things are a lot better.

28 Jess Alford January 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm


There is no comparison between a wood burning fireplaces and the raging forest fires they have out there. Am I missing something?

29 John Fariss January 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Are you suggesting that because you cannot do anything about the one, you should not do anything about the other? Is that a Biblical response? After all: God either could not or would not do anything about humankind’s inclination to sin; does that mean He should not have sent Jesus to save us from sin?

PS: I am not defending California. They seem to do a lot of squirelly things out there.

30 Jess Alford January 27, 2013 at 5:57 pm

John Farris,

I think wood is what God intended for us to use. Wood can replinish
itself, fossil fuels cannot. In the industrial revolution wood is not good enough. Industry demands something that burns hotter.

I would rather see woodburning fireplaces than anything else. There are places in California where there is very little air movement. I guess that’s why wood burning fireplaces can only be used certain times of the year.

This is a Biblical response. What they burned in Jesus’s day is good enough for me.

31 Bennett Willis January 27, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Wood is hard to move around. It also is expensive to “mine” for the energy you get from it. And there is just not enough of it. But you have a good point. It is traditional.

In cultures where wood is the normal fuel, people (usually girls) often spend almost all their time collecting fuel. One of the “projects” for these areas is introduction of efficient stoves to reduce the amount of wood needed.

This said, I live in a town where I could probably collect enough wood to heat my home from the trees that are culled from the green belts. I have thought of this as one of the ways to reduce my expenses should I retire again. But we all could not do it.

Wood is carbon dioxide neutral–as are forests (rain and otherwise–when left alone). You can burn it or let it oxidize naturally back to carbon dioxide.

32 Bill Mac January 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm


They probably burned manure in Jesus’ day.

33 Jess Alford January 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Bill Mac,

John the Baptist said the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Not to the bottom of the manure pile. LOL

34 Jess Alford January 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Bennett Willis,

I have been putting off building a fireplace, you have convinced me to go ahead with my plans. I used to burn wood in my other house. I will in my present home also. Thanks!

35 John Fariss January 28, 2013 at 9:31 am

Interesting responses so far to my inquiry. Among those who deny human involvement in any possible climate change, the responses are either along the lines of “hundreds of skeptical scientists don’t believe it,” “Jesus burned wood and that’s good enough for me,” or “I disbelieve it because of those who believe it.” The first really does not address my main question, which is about the emotional, passionate disagreement I often see from deniers, and the second, besides being shallow logic and theology, likewise does not address that issue. The third comes closer to an answer, and I think suggests that at least some deniers have conflagrated the issue of climate change with other issues and do not differenciate between an emotional response to one issue with a rationale for disagreeing with another. This at least approaches Jess Alford’s and Bennett Willis’s explanations of the emotional response I asked about. If anyone else who denies climate change would respond, I would be interested.


36 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 3:28 pm

If it is proposed as a “scientific” fact I don’t see the logical fallacy of pointing out that many scientists are skeptical.

37 John Fariss January 28, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Frank L.,

True, but that was merely an observation, not a criticism. The only problem I have with it is that it misses the point of my question. My question is, “Why the passion and intensity of the opposition?” rather than “Why are you opposed?” Surely you have noticed that many conservative evangelicals attack the concept of human-caused global warming with the intensity of opposing someone who had denied the divinity of Christ or the reliability of the Bible. Why? Why so much passion to a subject addressed little if any in the Bible? I guess I’m trying to see if it goes back to something I learned from my Daddy, that if someone is mad all out of proportion to their issue, their anger really comes from somewhere else. Is that the case here? If so, what are they really angry (or passionate, whatever) about?



38 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:03 pm

Why? I can’t speak for all conservatives but I can speak for one. I am passionate because I think it is a ruse, a red herring, part of a grander conspiracy.

In short, I think the Devil is behind it in many cases and so I am passionate in opposing it, or at least, asking hard questions about it.

I could turn the question to you: “why are liberals so passionate about fighting global warming, to the tune of billions of dollars?” And, now that Al Gore has made a ton of money on the topic, where is his passion? Parked on a beach I suppose–a beach he reached by a massive global warming aircraft.

39 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:05 pm

And . . . I might add that the interesting thing about the “grand conspiracy” I see working itself out in global politics is that little care seems to be taken to keep it a secret.

It is a “conspiracy in plain sight,” especially if one knows the Bible.

40 Bennett Willis January 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm

Frank, what fraction of the “scientists” are deniers? And what is the basis of that number. I want to check it out.

The numbers I see have over 80% of the scientists thinking that global warming is more likely than not. And the 20% are generally not ones that are regarded as skilled in understanding climate.

41 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:47 pm

“” And the 20% are generally not ones that are regarded as skilled in understanding climate.””

Isn’t that always the case with modern science? If you disagree you cannot be “skilled.”

I find it odd that someone would object to the minority opinion in science when the majority opinion has been wrong so many times.

In regard to your numbers, I don’t know. Two things, 1) this is not my area of expertise in science; 2) I don’t judge scientific proposals by the weight of the scientists on one side of the scale.

I’ll stand with Einstein. His greatest “blunder” (his term) was capitulating to the majority view in regard to his constant. His math told him the universe was expanding, but his heart lie with the majority “steady-staters.”

The majority view in science is a powerful force–not always a trustworthy one.

Therein lies my skepticism.

42 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:50 pm


I would add that even if I accepted a “global warming apocalypse” on the horizon, I would ask, “what can be done about it.”

The cure would be as bad, in my view, as the disease.

Global warming could not be thwarted without a “global government” — a “one world government.” Quite frankly, freezing to death may be a more desirable way for me to go.

43 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Follow-up 2:

If one looks at the career of the Global Warming Granddaddy, Al Gore, one would no doubt (and I have not done this research) discover that he was a “One World Politicians” BEFORE he hooked his wagon to “Global Warming.”

Could it be that some “spirit” behind the “Global Warming Apocalyptic Proponents” could see it as a “tool” to greater end?

44 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Follow-up 3:

The problem oftentimes with science is not the “science” but the philosophers and politicians that take it hostage for other motives.

Without the Huxleys (philosophers), Darwinism would not have taken hold–or not as ubiquitous a hold to be sure.

45 Jess Alford January 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm

Frank L.

I have never said this to you before, but some of the things you say and the way you make your points. Reminds me of Al Gore.

46 Frank L. January 28, 2013 at 9:54 pm


I have had some heavy insults and low blows flung my way over the years . . . that’s got to be one of the lowest :)

47 Bennett Willis January 28, 2013 at 2:47 pm
This is John Kerry coming out in belief of global warming. Another person who inspires denial in many hearts.

48 Bennett Willis January 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm

This link has a higher number than the one I gave above (currently comment 40). Significantly higher, in fact.

49 John Fariss January 30, 2013 at 9:46 am

Frank L.,

I really appreciate your comments. They are one of the few actual explanations I have heard. Then to, I am pleasantly surprized at the tone of the conversations in this thread; even the disagreements have been fairly congenial. Maybe ‘ole huggy bear Dave has calmed us all down, I don’t know.

Back to your answer: may I summarize what I think I hear you saying?

1) You are pasionate about your opposition because you see man-made global warming as a lie; but it is not “just” a lie, but a Satanic lie which has implications far beyond itself. This is reflected in your comment that Al Gore, whom you regard as prominent in the pro-climate change camp, may have espoused “one world” views, a viewpoint often considered to be supporting Satan in a conservative, evangelical (and premillennial?)interpretation of the Book of Revelation. In other words, the issue of man-made climate change is a threat to your world-view.
2) You are passionate about your opposition because you associate with it at least one political figure whom you regard as a hypocrite and a liberal, Al Gore. I wonder if there is not some sense of betrayal here also, since Gore is a Southerner (a Tennessian) and formerly regarded himself as a Southern Baptist–a combination often considered to make one conservative not only theologically, but socially as well.
3) As a minor refrain, you suggest that even if global warming is real, that “the cure” would be as bad as “the disease,” which seems to be a sign of hopelessness, that humanity is unable to fix things on a global scale–so why even try?

If I have heard you correctly, this suggests to me that indeed your passion is not so much much about climate change as it is a transfer of passion from other things (threats to your understanding of Scripture and betrayal from someone who “should” have been on “our” side) to the issue of climate change. I do not intend this as a criticism. In fact, you will notice that I have not said whether ot not I agree with the concept of climate change. I am simply trying to understand the passion against it among many of my conservatie evangelical brothers.


50 Frank L. January 30, 2013 at 3:40 pm


Let me say that your analysis is to my point of view as the Saturday Night Live News Desk report is to news.

I’ve never been infatuated with Southern Baptists in high office. For the most part they are a predictable embarrassment.

Instead of analyzing my point of view, it would be nice to see yours. Otherwise it makes one suspect.

My view is quite simple in regard to the “Global Warming Theology.” It is the oldest form of religion in the world–paganism, or “creation worship.” My amazement comes when Bible readers do not see this for what it is. Many let science take the reins and the horse jumps off a cliff.

Romans 1:25 seems clear enough.

51 John Fariss January 31, 2013 at 10:41 am

Frank L.,

It was not my intent to either insult or misrepresent you, and if I have done so, I apologize. What I wrote, though, is what I get from what you said. You brought up Al Gore, and your comments seem to me to be emotion-laden. If you had no emotional stake in him, I would expect them to be against his position or behavior and nothing more, but it certainly sounds like more, like there is some sort of betrayal involved. Assuming (and yes, I know how to spell “assume”) it is not personal, I speculated that it was related to the interesection of his faith and political systems with yours. If there is another source of your animus, please explain it to me. I don’t think what I wrote is the same as you being “infatuated with Southern Baptists in high office,” though maybe we are understanding that differently.

Your comment, “Instead of analyzing my point of view, it would be nice to see yours. Otherwise it makes one suspect.” is interesting too, and I take it as a sort of veiled attack. You seem to suggest that I have either a viewpoint or an agenda different from my stated one. I deliberately did not state my viewpoint on global warming because I did not want that to influence anyone’s responses to me, and my agenda is exactly what I said: to understand yours (both you personally and that of others). Since you ask, I love the outdoors, have seen much national forest land abused and destroyed by heavy-handed logging operations since the 1980s, and consider myself a conservationist in the style of Theodore Roosevelt. My view on global warming is akin to that of Bennett Willis. My grandfather kept a weather diary from around 1910 until just before his death in 1951. It is interesting in it that he notes sustained temperatures in north Alabama of well over 100 degrees and droughts of months duration in the late 1920s–just before the “Dust Bowl” disasters of the early 1930s, and it is well established that the Dust Bowl was much a man-made disaster.

I am not really sure what “Global Warming Theology” is. I do know that too many people worship creation (in many forms) rather than the Creator, and that the Book of Genesis charges humankind with having dominion over the world. I do however believe “dominion” refers to a careful stewardship of resources and not that “we” have permission to rape the land at will, through such things as strip mining, clear-cutting forests, and pollution.


52 Bennett Willis January 30, 2013 at 4:03 pm

John, I went down the hall to the office of a fellow teacher that I truly appreciate. He is consistently far right in his political attitudes but is otherwise very active in learning new things about languages, theology (he has a library anyone who reads this blog would be proud of), chemistry, and the like. He came down completely on the “warming is nonsense” side of the question. But he has never read the data. He simply lumped it into the liberal column and therefore he was against it.

I think the issue is more “our side” and “their side” than anything else. I have never heard anyone who thinks warming is nonsense who has seriously looked at the data and critically thought about it. I am sure there are those who have done this, but I have not met them. The basis for the disagreement is never data based in the sense that the person looks at “all” the data and then decides that warming is nonsense. At best the person decides that warming is nonsense and then decides which data to look at.

There have been some interesting articles about how people come to conclusions and stick with them with passion regardless of everything. “Our side” and “their side” is a major part. I think that McVeigh did what he did because of the perception he had of what the government had done to “his friends.” And I think this is a major motivation for both suicide bombers and the psychologist who shot those people at Ft. Hood.

If you are interested in the warming data, check the link from comment 48. It is a “warming is real” site, but they give data from both sides of the discussion. They seem to be fair about how the data might be interpreted and what the best way to interpret the data might be.

53 Frank L. January 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm


If I were to concede that the data shows a warming trend, does that necessarily lead to all the other conclusions that are made in regard to the data.

Would you be willing to concede the fact that “Global Warming” is not a “scientific” but a “political” issue for many people?

Do you feel that a “Global Government” would be an acceptable way to deal with the issue? I for one, do not see any other way in which to deal with Global Warming–if indeed it can be dealt with and is an actual apocalyptic issue as many describe. I feel this would be worse than any predicted affect of said warming.

Do you agree that “environmentalism” is steeped in a religious framework, or is only “science?”

These are questions I ask myself for a very important reason: there is a very different issue in regard to “data” and the “conclusions” that others derive from data. Data does not make conclusions. Science does not make conclusions–scientists do.

Scientists are not above an egocentric bias anymore than any other discipline.

I must admit I am quite skeptical when an opponent of carbon consumption readily accepts a windfall by selling his interest to oil producing companies.

That, too, is data.

54 Bennett Willis January 31, 2013 at 1:13 pm

Frank, I put the full reply below so I could have a wider column to work with.

55 Jess Alford January 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Frank L.

Sir I would like to ask you a question. Are you saying that all the thousands of smokestacks that give off gases 24 hrs. a day and
all the land fills that are full of chemicals will not harm the air
and water? Are you saying that the climate will not be effected
in some way by all the air polution?

56 Frank L. January 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm


57 Bennett Willis January 30, 2013 at 9:36 pm

Only reasonable answer to that question. Good job, Frank!

58 Frank L. January 30, 2013 at 10:21 pm


Just to clarify. I am not “sold” on the coming global warming apocalypse but I recognize there is some data that we are in a “weather pattern.”

I’m not an expert so I’m trying to keep an open mind.

I am not an “environmentalist,” but I enjoy the environment and thing reasonable, attainable measures to protect it are valuable.

I’m not a scientist but a scientifically savvy theologian. I don’t trust a statement when science is used as the subject of the sentence: “Science says . . . ”

I am the ultimate conspiracy theorist believing the Devil has a plan to mess everything up — including the environment and any attempts to clean it up. I believe he is on board with chaos and catastrophe, and evil in general anytime it suits his purpose–which is all the time.

59 Bennett Willis January 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm

This is a response to Frank L.’s comment (#53) above.

“If I were to concede that the data shows a warming trend, does that necessarily lead to all the other conclusions that are made in regard to the data.”

No, it just means that you have looked at the data. A major issue that I have (a personality issue, I recognize) is that many people who are anti-warming (AW) have never looked at the data.

“Would you be willing to concede the fact that “Global Warming” is not a “scientific” but a “political” issue for many people?”

I just can’t do this. The AW people take advantage of the situation to promote their politics, but the pro-warming people tend to stick to talking about the problem and what the choices are that we have in trying to deal with it. Unfortunately, the “big” solutions require political action so in that sense it is a political issue for both sides. I regard the description of the climate change as “Global Warming” as a poor choice. But there is heat being retained on Earth from the carbon dioxide that we have added to the atmosphere. This is certain to produce some results. Some of those results have to be warming and others may be change in weather patterns that produce more extreme weather. We have developed our civilization with (more or less) the weather we now have. Changes in the weather will not be pain free.

“Do you feel that a “Global Government” would be an acceptable way to deal with the issue?”

I regard fears of “Global Government” as unfounded. It may be that you feel that some of the named conspirators are going to use a pretended interest in global weather as a stepping stone to control, but I just don’t see any evidence of that. I don’t see Global Government as a solution that anyone could credibly pretend would do things that our present governments could not do.

Do you agree that “environmentalism” is steeped in a religious framework, or is only “science?”

The people who feel we should take care of the creation usually feel it strongly. In that sense I suppose you could say it is a religious framework. I don’t feel that they worship the creation in the same sense that you worship God.

“Data does not make conclusions. Science does not make conclusions–scientists do.”

I can’t disagree with this statement. However, science does have a feedback loop that will (eventually) bring things back toward the facts when it gets off the right path. In some sense data and science do make conclusions. You put data out there (with your conclusions, most of the time) and let everyone have a shot at it, check it, try to reproduce it, etc. Sometimes, the conclusions just fall out without you having to point them out along with the supporting data. And sometimes the data (and the scientist) get shot down.

“Scientists are not above an egocentric bias anymore than any other discipline.”

Of course scientists have the same ego issues as all of us. However, the feedback loop I talked about does constrain scientists—if not immediately, then eventually. Theology has a similar feedback loop in many cases.

Did you have anyone in mind when you talked about selling out?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: