Response letter from Dr. Calvin Beisner regarding Global Warming

[olger]

July 25, 2011

by E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance

Tens, even scores, of millions of adult Americans will remember warmly the weekly papers we received in school from The Scholastic. They were geared for specific age ranges, from Kindergarten up through twelfth grade, and covered a wide variety of subjects. They were helpful curriculum supplements to teachers.

They’re still around today. I assume many are as useful, and unobjectionable, as they were forty, thirty, even twenty years ago.

But not all.

A few days ago the Cornwall Alliance received an email from a Kindergarten teacher at a Christian school. She had been surprised when her school principal told her not to use “The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge,” a book and Webcast video from Scholastic.com designed for Kindergartners through third graders, to acquaint them with the serious danger of global warming caused by burning fossil fuels and how we all can “go Green” to “help save the planet” by resorting to wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources.

“My principal says absolutely no global warming. He does not say why other than it is not a Christian worldview. … My Kindergartners enjoy the magic school bus. They learn about so many topics that I cannot always explain. Can you tell me why the … program would be a bad thing?”

"Well, I can’t peer into her principal’s mind, and she identified neither herself nor her school, so I can’t ask him to expand on his thinking. But her question is a good one and deserved a careful answer. I hope I supplied it with what follows, which is, with a few very minor changes, the main body of my reply:

You’ve said the only reason your principal gave you for not teaching the children about global warming is that “it is not a Christian worldview.” Let me begin by addressing that, for although few people have thought the issue through at that depth, he’s actually going right to the root of the matter.

It’s certainly not impossible, in this post-Fall world in which all people are sinners (Romans 3:20) and the Earth itself is under God’s curse because of our sin (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:18-23), for human beings to do things that harm the Earth, and we as Christians have a responsibility to pursue God’s instruction to multiply, fill the Earth, subdue it, and rule over it (Genesis 1:28) in a godly way that glorifies Him and serves our neighbors by enhancing its fruitfulness and beauty and guarding it against abuse (Genesis 2:15).

However, the widespread belief that human emission of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, though by comparison their contribution is slight) is causing what either already is or will in the future become dangerous global warming rests on an assumption that goes well beyond this. It is the assumption—common to almost all environmentalist thought—that the Earth and its natural systems (biosystems, geosystems, the climate system) are extremely fragile and thus subject to catastrophic harm even by comparatively tiny influences. To be specific, in the case of global warming the hypothesis is that increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere from about 270 parts per million by volume to about 540 parts per million by volume (that is, from about 27 thousandths of a percent to 54 thousandths of a percent) would cause catastrophic heating that could jeopardize human civilization as we know it, or even perhaps all life as we know it. Stop and think really carefully about those proportions for a moment: from 27 thousandths of a percent to 54 thousandths of a percent. That means that CO2 would still, after doubling its concentration, make up less than 0.06 percent of the atmosphere.

In a moment I’ll suggest some empirical arguments against that hypothesis, but for the moment, taking your principal’s cue, let’s just focus on the worldview issue: whether that hypothesis is consistent with a Christian understanding of God as Creator and Sustainer of His creation, and the climate system as part of that creation. And to take the issue out of the highly charged one—because of the massive political and media campaign waged over it in the last three decades—of global warming, let’s apply it to an analogy instead. Suppose an architect designed a building so that if someone leaned casually against one wall it would collapse. Would any of us say, “Oh, that’s a brilliant design! The architect must be brilliant!”? No, I don’t think so. Instead, we’d think that design was pretty foolish.

But that’s exactly the view of Earth’s climate system presupposed by global warming alarmism. Let me explain a little more fully.

Even proponents of the hypothesis acknowledge that, according to basic physics, doubling atmospheric CO2 would cause only about 1.2 degrees Celsius of increase in global average temperature. Nobody thinks that amount of warming would be harmful; indeed, most studies indicate that it would be beneficial to most parts of the Earth, lengthening growing seasons in high latitudes, increasing rainfall, and thus improving agricultural yields and plant growth generally. The fears all come from the belief—generally embraced by those working under the auspices of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—that climate feedback mechanisms would greatly magnify that warming—indeed, by about 250% (to 3C) to 375% (to 4.5C).

Again, thinking from a Biblical worldview perspective, which recognizes that Earth’s climate system is the product of God’s wise design and is sustained by His omnipotent providence, does this make sense? Let’s go to our analogy again: Would we think that an architect who designed a building so that all its internal feedback mechanisms magnified any stress put on it so that ultimately a positive feedback loop would cause the whole building to collapse simply because someone leaned on one wall was a great designer? Surely not.

In short, then, the Christian worldview provides a basis, a presupposition, from which the Christian will automatically be quite skeptical of the kind of reasoning that leads to fears of catastrophic, anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (CAGW).

That’s not the only reason why many Christians—including many Christian climate scientists and other natural scientists—reject fears of CAGW. Increasingly in recent years their empirical research has provided significant support for that position. In fact, it has been pointing in the opposition direction from the fears. The fears assume what’s called high “climate sensitivity”—that climate will warm a lot because of increased CO2 concentration. Increasing empirical observations point to low “climate sensitivity”—that climate will warm very little because of increased CO2 concentration. They are finding, in fact, that the overall feedback mechanisms are not positive (magnifying the influence of any given stress on the climate system) but negative (reducing the influence). That is, they’re finding that the climate system, though not static or in equilibrium (no natural system is), is generally stable, varying within a fairly narrow range. A variety of different studies increasingly lead these scientists to believe that the 1.2 degrees Celsius of increased warming that would come from doubled CO2 in the absence of feedbacks is not magnified by the overall feedbacks (to about 3-4.5 degrees C) but rather is reduced by them (to something in the range of 0.5-1 degree C). For just one illustration of that, see the recent work of Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, a Christian, a good friend of mine, and a contributing scholar to the work of The Cornwall Alliance, discussed in his two most recent blog posts here and here. They’re a little technical and assume that readers are already familiar with some of Spencer’s ongoing work in this field, but with the background I’ve given you, you should be able to understand his basic case. Let me try to summarize it for you.

We start with a fact that will surprise the vast majority of the public, since the media have failed to pass this along effectively: There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. (This is something admitted even by IPCC lead scientist Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia; see here.) Various alarmists have been quite puzzled by this—one of them, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, saying it’s a “travesty” that we can’t explain it. Lately one hypothesis offered to explain this lack of atmospheric warming is that the “missing” heat (“missing,” of course, only if one first assumes the hypothesis of overall positive feedbacks) is being absorbed into the deep oceans, from whence, sometime in the future, it will be returned to the atmosphere, causing a sudden and very rapid increase in atmospheric temperature—global warming coming back to bite us, so to speak. The work on which Spencer reports in the two blog posts I linked above demonstrates pretty clearly that this isn’t the case—because in fact there’s been no warming in the deep ocean over the period in question. This entails that the “missing” heat—if indeed there is any—is going out into space, from whence it will never return. That, in turn, means that overall feedbacks are negative (minimizing warming from added CO2) rather than positive, the climate system is stable rather than fragile, and the fears of CAGW are unfounded.

This, then, is what I would offer you as the basic case for your principal’s assertion that global warming—or, to be more precise, CAGW—isn’t consistent with the Christian worldview, and therefore you shouldn’t be teaching it to your young students.

The Cornwall Alliance—a network of evangelical theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, other academics, and policy experts committed to bringing Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics together with excellent science and economics to promote simultaneously (a) balanced, Biblical Earth stewardship, ( economic development for the poor, and © the proclamation and defense of the gospel of Christ—has made the case against CAGW in greater depth in several places. I would encourage you first to read for yourself our major study A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming (the work of 29 different evangelical theologians, scientists, and economists). After that you might also want to watch Dr. David Legates’s lecture “Putting Out the Dragon’s Fire on Global Warming,” part of our 13-part DVD series Resisting the Green Dragon, available at www.ResistingtheGreenDragon.com.

Let me conclude by commenting directly, though very briefly, on “The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge” video and whether it’s suitable for children—Christian or non-Christian, in a Christian school or a public school. The program presents only the alarmist view, with no balancing consideration of the scientific, let alone the worldview, objections to it. It thus will cause unnecessary fears among children who view it. It states, that many common activities are causing CAGW, causing unwarranted feelings of guilt for harming others when in fact those activities almost certainly aren’t harming others. I would put it in the category of propaganda, taking advantage of the naivete and lack of discernment common—unavoidably, given their youth and lack of widespread study and experience—to Kindergartners through third graders. It’s precisely the kind of thing against which Dr. Michael Farris, founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College and founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warns in his lecture “From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth,” in Resisting the Green Dragon.

I hope you find this helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance, and may God bless you as you seek to teach young children the glories of His creation so that they will be able to appreciate the message of Psalm 19 and Psalm 104 and not fall into the trap of worshiping the creature rather than the Creator, about which Paul warned in Romans 1."

[CoAspen]

Quote:

This, then, is what I would offer you as the basic case for your principal’s assertion that global warming—or, to be more precise, CAGW—isn’t consistent with the Christian worldview, and therefore you shouldn’t be teaching it to your young students.

The most telling part of the whole article, "doesn't agree with my theology"...so it ain't so!!!

Hey, maybe we can all use that excuse!!!! Oh, we already do!!

To each their own, makes the world go 'round"....flat to others!!

[LifeHiscost]

July 25, 2011

by E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance“Putting Out the Dragon’s Fire on Global Warming,” part of our 13-part DVD series Resisting the Green Dragon, available at www.ResistingtheGreenDragon.com.

Let me conclude by commenting directly, though very briefly, on “The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge” video and whether it’s suitable for children—Christian or non-Christian, in a Christian school or a public school. The program presents only the alarmist view, with no balancing consideration of the scientific, let alone the worldview, objections to it. It thus will cause unnecessary fears among children who view it. It states, that many common activities are causing CAGW, causing unwarranted feelings of guilt for harming others when in fact those activities almost certainly aren’t harming others. I would put it in the category of propaganda, taking advantage of the naivete and lack of discernment common—unavoidably, given their youth and lack of widespread study and experience—to Kindergartners through third graders. It’s precisely the kind of thing against which Dr. Michael Farris, founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College and founder and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warns in his lecture “From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth,” in Resisting the Green Dragon."

Interesting assumptions. I've come to my own conclusion like this;

"Then I saw in heaven another marvelous event of great significance. Seven angels were holding the seven last plagues, which would bring God’s wrath to completion."Revelation 15:2 NLT

I'm satisfied to believe God does not throw a switch in which today there is no plague, and tomorrow the plague is there in full force. Consider two of the plagues.

"Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, causing it to scorch everyone with its fire. Everyone was burned by this blast of heat, and they cursed the name of God, who had control over all these plagues. They did not repent of their sins and turn to God and give him glory."Revelation 16:8,9 NLT

It is my belief that, especially in the most recent centuries, man has developed technologies that pollute the atmosphere in measure enough, that we are now seeing the precursors to the final end. That view is also substantiated by this from the Spirit of Prophecy.

"The disasters of the past year in America have caused hearts to tremble, and similar disasters have fallen upon other countries. Already sprinklings from the vials of God's wrath have been let fall upon land and sea, affecting the elements of the air. The causes of these unusual conditions are being searched for, but in vain." {5MR 16.1}

"God has not restrained the powers of darkness from carrying forward their deadly work of vitiating the air, one of the sources of life and nutrition, with a deadly miasma."{5MR 16.2}

And then again, another plague fits the description, and probably no one would argue that these things have increased immensely over the last century, another precursor to the final judgement of this earth brought about by man, led by the carnal mind under control of the enemy of souls.

"So the first angel left the Temple and poured out his bowl on the earth, and horrible, malignant sores broke out on everyone who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his statue" Revelation 16:2 NLT

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

The most telling part of the whole article, "doesn't agree with my theology"...so it ain't so!!!

Hey, maybe we can all use that excuse!!!! Oh, we already do!!

To each their own, makes the world go 'round"....flat to others!!

IOW, any old port in a storm will still give to us the same profitable and beneficial end results. Lots of luck with that one.

God blesses!

[Bravus]

So very much bad and plain wrong (a) science and ( theology in one letter...

[olger]

It is significant that global warming alarmists attribute fragility to the Earth in ways that the Scriptures do not. I appreciate Cal's "Leaning on the wall" analogy.

rejoice always,

G

[CoAspen]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

The most telling part of the whole article, "doesn't agree with my theology"...so it ain't so!!!

Hey, maybe we can all use that excuse!!!! Oh, we already do!!

To each their own, makes the world go 'round"....flat to others!!

IOW, any old port in a storm will still give to us the same profitable and beneficial end results. Lots of luck with that one.

God blesses!

?????? Say What?????

Not sure what your are trying to say......

[CoAspen]

A reading of their "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" shows they do not believe in the decline of the earth, very unbiblical, ie

Quote:

robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting,

and for all those quite familiar with EGW, not true either according to her words.Their words

Quote:

We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.

We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

seem to be right out of as Energy Industry advertising campaign! What of the current and ongoing starvation and famines in Africa? Just a normal cycle, caused by mandatory reductions in emissions, etc? Where is the correlation between thier rhetoric and reality? Where is their science? Their advisors is a long list of people involved in theology, not earth sciences.

Being concerned for the poor is very comendable, but I do not see any supporting data for their premise of that being improved by the economic policys of governments. What is the record on that?

They raise more questions about their goals than are answered by their 'talk'.

[Bravus]

I don't have the time or energy to go through all of it, but the 'fragility' claim is particularly egregious.

Two things about it: they talk about a *doubling* of atmospheric CO2, and then call that a negligible amount. In absolute terms greenhouse gases are a small proportion of the atmosphere, but doubling anything is a 100% change in relative terms. The greenhouse gases are what make much of the immense differences between the climates of Earth and Mars, so their influence is far from negligible.

And then the argument is about positive forcings, but even without positive forcings (for which there are good, well supported mechanisms), a few degrees change will cause massive impacts. Because the change is not evenly distributed: it's more energy into weather systems, which will cause more extreme weather. And that will have more impact on the poor.

The arguments are dishonest and disingenuous, and either don't know or distort the science in order to protect 'economic growth'.

Methinks Jesus needs to knot some cords together and go after the merchants in the temple again...

[ClubV12]

"The causes of these unusual conditions are being searched for, but in vain." {5MR 16.1}

Well Sister White summed it up right there...

[fccool]

Quote:

I don't have the time or energy to go through all of it, but the 'fragility' claim is particularly egregious.

Sure, I do find these to be somewhat misleading, especially the example about architect. There are plenty of examples where even minor shifts in balance can lead to catastrophic results. Consider the positioning of the earth, and if it would be 20 miles closer or further from the sun.

Quote:

Two things about it: they talk about a *doubling* of atmospheric CO2, and then call that a negligible amount. In absolute terms greenhouse gases are a small proportion of the atmosphere, but doubling anything is a 100% change in relative terms. The greenhouse gases are what make much of the immense differences between the climates of Earth and Mars, so their influence is far from negligible.

On the other hand I find your argument quite misleading likewise. To talk in terms of percentage increases is not as meaningful when we talk about overall green house composition that's responsible for the heating of the earth. The majority of the green house effect is due to the water vapor, which account for 36 – 72% at any given time. Carbon dioxide accounts for 9 – 26 %.

The important issue of course is how much of that 9 - 26% is produced by humans ... once you realize that impact is 0.28%, then the entire human-made global warming theory falls apart. Even at 100% increase you are looking at .5% . That's the reason why 100% increase looks much more terrifying than it should be.

There's a lot of talk behind "bad science", but the numbers are simply not there. 0.28% of overall green house gasses simply can't be scientifically responsible for the temperature fluctuations that we observe historically. Humans have large impact on overall environmental damages, but CO2 accumulation is not one of them, especially when we consider the amounts of C02 consumed by plans and the sea.

To make the matter even more clear, there's plenty of recorded major weather fluctuations in history of humanity that were more significant than what we observe today. These shifts were far more severe, did not show to be "catastrophic" and had little to do with CO2.

Quote:

And then the argument is about positive forcings, but even without positive forcings (for which there are good, well supported mechanisms), a few degrees change will cause massive impacts. Because the change is not evenly distributed: it's more energy into weather systems, which will cause more extreme weather. And that will have more impact on the poor.

That simply is not true when we consider the overall change of the global atmosphere composition. Sure, the weather eco-system is a complex one and can be dependent on many factors. Sure, there may be some impact, but it has little to do with increase in CO2 in atmosphere due to human fossil burning.

Once we establish that C02 is not a pollutant, but a necessary element for life on earth, the issue becomes even less severe.

Quote:

The arguments are dishonest and disingenuous, and either don't know or distort the science in order to protect 'economic growth'.

Actually, the science of global warming is used as a political tool to protect the economic dominance of the West over the developing world. It's dishonest, and the facts are purposefully distorted (I don't think I need to invoke certain e-mail uncovered) to slant the debate as "done and over".

The numbers simply don't support the argument. They don't.

Quote:

Methinks Jesus needs to knot some cords together and go after the merchants in the temple again...

I don't think you fully understand the political mechanism behind the science of Global Warming. In the very least, you can agree than it's unfairly prioritizes west and suffocates the developing world.

The final question for you:

Do you believe that scientific community in any way benefits from sensationalizing the problem in terms of continuous grants for research? What would happen to the "global warming" scientific community if it was to be a non-issue?

Science is not always "unbiased". It's only as "unbiased" as people behind it. As much as you'd like to downlplay this , this issue simply won't go away. Even if these were taken out of context, the issue behind the conflict of the interest will remain, especially given the overall idea that fraction of a percent in increase of C02 can lead to temperature hikes that are disproportionate to that increase and supposed "catastrophic consequences" that were simply not observed during similar fluctuations in the past.

Now, let's talk about dishonesty?

[Restin]

Well, since we SDA are watching for signs of the Second Coming, and weather change is of interest to us, I just think that as long as the "scientists" can give some rational explanation for the weather extremes of late, people won't be impressed it is any sign from God. Therefore, I've arrived at the opinion that God may reveal to the world something more of a supernatural thing, to get its attention to matters spiritual.

What if asteroids, or good ole fashion "fire and brimstone" hit the earth and ONLY knocked down cities( not the countryside or wilderness, but only cities)

That might be a bit harder for the "experts" to explain away.

You know...something like that.

[Bravus]

[Bravus]

Restin, yes, that's exactly it: we must destroy the world intentionally to create a fake sign of Christ's soon return.

Wait, WHAT?!

[Tom Wetmore]

[ClubV12]

It's not "we" who would destroy the world as Restin suggests, but an act of God.

Restin says,

"I've arrived at the opinion that God may reveal to the world something more of a supernatural thing, to get its attention to matters spiritual."

I suspect, no matter how catastrophic an event may be, and they WILL come around, man will still find a way to reason it out "scientifically". Much like Pharoah did during the plagues of Egypt.

God was intervening during the Civil War, this according to Sister White, cutting some battles short, influencing and bringing people to decision points. Allowing the evil one to do his dirty work. But you won't find anything about that from the history books.

So, how will we know, what disasters are or not of God? There is no agreement, indeed, it's politicially inconvienient to talk about "natural disasters" in terms of God. Katrina. Climate change? Happenstance? Act of God (well at least the insurance companies have a clue here)? Japan? Same questions.

I think it is dangerous to ignore the heavenly possibilities in these, and yet, difficult to talk about. After all, it was "just a hurricane, an earth quake, a flood". Yup, thats pretty much what they said in Noah's time when it first started raining. How BIG does it have to be to get our attention?

[olger]

When I become president,

I will cut the EPA by 50% immediately and turn their building into something more useful - like laser-tag.

My qualifications for Senators: You have to spend 200 hours on a Mike Rowe-approved dirty job each year, and operate a lemonade stand that turns a profit on the neighborhood corner. Congress? Same requirement plus being able to balance your own checkbook.

stay tuned...

`oG

[fccool]

I think the best way to go is to do away with Nascar . Such a waste of petroleum! :)

[LifeHiscost]

How BIG does it have to be to get our attention?

" Then I saw in heaven another marvelous event of great significance. Seven angels were holding the seven last plagues, which would bring God’s wrath to completion."Revelation 15:2 NLT

Of course the problem with this is that most of humankind will be in this category, much to the sorrow and chagrin of God.

"And they cried to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb."Revelation 6:16 NLT

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Then we could always accept the knowledge of One Who knows.

"I don't think you fully understand the political mechanism behind the science of Global Warming. In the very least, you can agree than it's unfairly prioritizes west and suffocates the developing world."

"The earth mourns and fades away, The world languishes and fades away; The haughty people of the earth languish."Isaiah 24:4 NKJV

"And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world —from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven."Matthew 24:31 NLT

"Together they will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them because he is Lord of all lords and King of all kings. And his called and chosen and faithful ones will be with him.”"Revelation 17:14 NLT

God blesses!

[olger]

I think the best way to go is to do away with Nascar . Such a waste of petroleum!

True, that would leave me more fer dumpin on the weeds in that fence row.

[Restin]

Uh...that one almost went over my head, Bravus.

Well, ya can't win...Even if asteroids hit only cities, somebody would say Area 51 is responsible for it. So, I guess that blows my little theory.

[fccool]

Quote:

True, that would leave me more fer dumpin on the weeds in that fence row.

Lol . I guess it's still cheaper than buying the other stuff. Thinking about it, gasoline is still cheaper than milk!

[Planey]

Thinking about it, gasoline is still cheaper than milk!

Tastes better, too.

Cornflakes a flambe.

Graeme