Monday, July 1, 2013

Climate Change: Are You Chicken Little?

Almost every person I know wants to care for Planet Earth. Our reasons for doing so, however, usually stem from one of two very different philosophies:
either Biblical Stewardship or Evolutionary Atheism.

A Biblical worldview recognizes that God is:
> Creator of all things, including all life and the universe;
> Providential, providing and caring for His creation; and
> Sovereign, that He is in control of all things.

Evolutionary atheism denies a God with any of these characteristics; thus, humans must be subservient to earth because she holds the future of all in her unpredictable and tenuous grip.

Interestingly, this document on "sustainability" by College Student Educators International demonstrates the extent to which we have been inundated by evolutionary thought, displaying the interplay between social justice, education, sustainable development, and environment, all the while declaring that
  "we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet."

When you remove the Providential God from the picture, it's easy to see why some are worried about man destroying earth to the point that it will be inhabitable.

But from a Biblical perspective, we can draw great comfort in resting on the Providence and Sovereignty of God, knowing we do not need to fear. In fact, God has charged His people to take dominion over the earth while properly tending to His creation.

We care for the earth out of love for and obedience to the Creator,

not out of fear of the creation.

Cornwall Alliance does a wonderful job of discussing Environmental Stewardship. I hope you'll use their website as a reference tool:   

Below is an article from their latest newsletter, June 26, 2013, in response to President Obama's recent declaration of intended extraconstitutional activity.

So, you tell me: Which worldview does the President hold?


President Obama Sets Out on Fool’s Errand: Fighting Climate Change

In a televised speech at Georgetown University yesterday, with his suit jacket off and frequently wiping his brow with a handkerchief in the predictable heat of a late-June day in Washington, D.C., President Barack Obama announced that he’ll do an end run around Congress and unilaterally institute measures to fight global warming through the executive branch:

… science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.
So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science—of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements—has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.
So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.
As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.
I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing. And that’s why, today, I’m announcing a new national climate action plan, and I’m here to enlist your generation’s help in keeping the United States of America a leader—a global leader—in the fight against climate change.

His plan calls for major new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increases in energy efficiency throughout the economy, and large increases in the proportion of the nation’s energy produced from wind and solar.

The Cornwall Alliance plans to respond more fully to the President’s speech soon, for it presages grave harm to Americans and, because he’s determined to press for similar policies worldwide, others around the world—especially the poor.

For now, however, we simply point out that even if carbon dioxide emissions had all the effects on climate the President claims (which we deny), and even if we could achieve all the emission reductions he targets at no significant cost to the economy (which we deny), he’d still be on a fool’s errand.


Because, as climatologist Dr. John Christy calculates, even if the U.S. achieved a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the net impact would be a reduction in global average temperature of an undetectable and utterly inconsequential 7 hundredths of 1 degree Celsius.

Or, as climatologist Dr. Chip Knappenberger calculates, “Using assumptions based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction, or a ‘savings,’ of approximately 0.08°C by the year 2050 and 0.17°C by the year 2100—amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible.”


Mr. President, I submit you are an EACL (Evolutionary Atheistic Chicken Little).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.