The earth is burning!
It's an existential crisis!
Climate action now!
Western culture is flooded with the fear-inspiring doctrine of climate change. Over the last 30 years, it has forced its way into every nook of our lives, affecting our wallets, our freedoms, and even our view of the future.
So, what is climate change? Why is so much made of it? And are the fears associated with it really justified?
The Basics of Climate Change
Understanding the basics of climate change begins by understanding the term itself. So, just what is "climate change"?
Advocates define it as “long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns” [1]. These shifts are driven by increases in global temperatures, they claim, which produce negative consequences for the planet and its inhabitants.
The United Nations states that temperature changes are due "primarily" to humans burning fossil fuels. The data does not support this, as will be shown later in this article.
Three assumptions are made regarding these supposed temperature shifts:
They are rising quickly.
They are an imminent threat to life on earth, human, animal, and plant.
They are caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution, primarily through the use of fossil fuels.
As a result of these assumptions, climate alarmists demand drastic, immediate action to suspend or reverse global temperature increases, including the elimination of the extraction and use of fossil fuels; the reduction of development of land for farming, manufacturing, and housing; the controlling of birth rates; and massive increases in spending to develop energy technologies that are not carbon-based (i.e., fossil fuels).
Climate alarmism creates so much fear some young people are considering not having children, as this 2024 article on the National Review website suggests. Read the article here.
To determine whether these claims are valid, and these drastic steps are required, the three assumptions associated with climate change must be evaluated. Are temperatures rising rapidly, are they a threat to life, and are these increases caused by human beings?
Let's take a closer look to find out.
Evaluating the Three Climate Change Assumptions
Assumption 1: Are temperatures rising quickly?
According to the United Nations:
The average temperature of the Earth’s surface is now about 1.2°C warmer than it was in the late 1800s (before the Industrial Revolution) and warmer than at any time in the last 100,000 years.
The 1.2°C increase (which equates to 2.2°F) is highly debated. Here are several sources that challenge this figure:
Roy Spencer, Ph.D., Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA, stated, “Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy.”[2]
Alabama State Climatologist, John Christy, Ph.D., suggests a 0.4-0.6°C (0.72-1.08°F) increase.[3]
Creation Ministries International, one of the largest apologetics ministries in the world, with more than 10 science-related Ph.D.s on staff, puts the increase at only 0.8°C (1.4°F).[4]
Regarding U.S. temperatures, according to a report published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation [5]:
Since 1895, average annual temperatures have been rising by 0.15°F/decade. But this increase has not been at a consistent rate. There was a rapid rise in temperature until about 1940, followed by a fall that lasted until the 1970s. Then temperatures increased rapidly up to the 1990s, but there has been no warming since then. [emphasis added]
Temperate increase estimate comparison showing figures reported by groups like the UN are far higher than those of other researchers, mostly due to high reliance on computer modeling vs measured data from satellites, balloons, and surface devices.
As these sources suggest, there is no consensus on the level of warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. One of the reasons the United Nations and other climate organizations report such a high figure may be their dependence on computerized climate models, as opposed to observed temperature data from satellites, balloons, and surface devices. This is a common approach within the climate industry, to overemphasize models and predictions and discount observed data.
Will the rise go on forever?
Even though the measured temperature rise is far less than commonly reported, will it continue at this pace forever, eventually raising the temperature of the planet to dangerous levels? There are good reasons to believe it will not.
First, temperatures have been higher in the past, but those trends have not continued indefinitely, nor did they result in catastrophic consequences for the planet.[6, 7]
The Roman Warming Period (RWP) from AD 1-400 exhibited temperatures 2°C (3.6° F) above current temperatures. These higher temperatures did not destroy life; on the contrary, the Roman Empire flourished during this time.
The Medieval Warming Period, from AD 950-1300, was warmer than now, as well. And yet this period was “very productive time for crops and the advance of science, logic, architecture, and the arts.”
In terms of lower temperatures than now (as opposed to higher), the Little Ice Age from AD 1300-1870 demonstrated much colder temperatures, and this was a problem for life on the earth. Per Don Batten, “The shorter crop growing seasons caused famines, plagues, and widespread poverty.” Keep this in mind later, when the effects of cold are discussed.
Second, God himself has promised to preserve the earth's climate, and he has given us the most extreme example of its ability to rebound from environmental shocks.
In Genesis 8:22, he said, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” Note the words used here, particularly in the context of modern climate claims. There will be cold and heat, winter and summer, until the end of time. This makes void the claim that the earth will heat up until life is no longer possible.
Furthermore, this statement is made on the heels of a flood that covered the entire world, an event that submerged all plant and animal life for approximately five months (150 days per Gen. 7:24). During this time,
All flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing...and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. ... Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days. Gen. 7:21-23
Do not let the significance of this be lost. Every tree, every crop, every inch of habitable land—all were completely cut off from the sun for months. And every bird, lizard, horse, and dinosaur drown, except for those on the Ark.
And yet, after all of that, a small number of human beings and animals were able to repopulate the entire world, and the global environment was able to re-established itself so well it now supports over 8 billion people and countless animals.
Does that sound like a climate that can't absorb temperature and weather changes?
Assumption 2: Are temperature changes a threat to life on earth?
Temperate increases of the kind identified earlier are far from catastrophic for life on earth; in fact, they are a blessing to life, particularly for human beings. Consider several examples:
Increased temperatures result in longer growing seasons and greater food production, helping overcome food shortages, starvation, and poverty.[8]
Increased CO2 improves plant productivity and increases food production. CO2 levels are often increased dramatically in greenhouses to increase yields, a practice known as “carbon dioxide enrichment.” “Elevated levels of CO2 encourage faster growth, larger and more productive fruit bearing, and increased tolerance to both heat and cold.”[9]
Warmer temperatures prevent cold-related deaths. More people die each year from cold than heat. Heat kills approximately 600,000 people every year, while cold kills 4.5 million (750% more). Higher temperatures mean more people die from heat (116,000), yes, but far more are saved from dying from cold (283,000).[10] See the chart below for a visualization of these numbers.
Slightly warmer temperatures from natural weather cycles are better for the human population as they reduce total deaths related to temperature.
Assumption 3: Are temperature changes caused by human activity?
The Greenhouse Effect
The scientific principle underlying climate change is known as “the greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect describes the way the atmosphere keeps the sun's heat near the earth instead of letting it radiate back into space. Without this phenomenon, the earth would be so cold it would be uninhabitable.
Various gases contribute to the greenhouse effect, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Of these, water vapor accounts for more than 95% of the greenhouse effect [11], with CO2 (the focus of the climate industry) contributing only about 3.3%.[12]
Water vapor, however, is often ignored when climate change is discussed. Don Batten sees this as problematic. He writes, “Since water has a much greater greenhouse effect, the exclusion of water from the debate is inexcusable.”[13, 14]
While manmade sources of CO2 are the focus of climate industry, CO2 actually has many sources, most of which are outside the control of human beings. These include volcanoes, rock weathering, the breakdown of organic remains, and the release of CO2 by the oceans.[15] Manmade CO2 primarily comes from burning fossil fuels.
Manmade CO2 to blame?
So, is manmade CO2 causing increased global temperatures? Highly unlikely for one simple reason: since the mid-1900s, when fossil fuel use increased because of the Industrial Revolution, growth rates of manmade atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with temperature variations.
Don Batten provides some insight into this phenomenon [16]:
The rate of rise in temperature from 1860–1880 is similar to the recent rise, and yet the amount of human-generated CO2 is about 60 times greater for the latter period. And there have also been significant periods of cooling (1880–1910 and 1940–1950), while CO2 emissions were rising.
These data show that the global temperature is not rising consistently with the increased production of human-generated CO2. … These observations cast doubt on the claim that human-generated CO2 is the prime cause of periods of global warming since 1880.
Graph showing air temperature changes compared to CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2010. Temperatures go up and down but emissions steadily increase. Source: Don Batten. Read the full article here.
What is he saying here? He's saying that manmade CO2 has been steadily rising since the middle of the 1800s, but in that same time, global temperatures have gone up and down. If manmade CO2 was to blame for changes in temperatures, it would go up when temperature goes up and down when temperature goes down. But it does not do that; there is no direct correlation between the two.
What, then, do we conclude? Something other than manmade CO2 is the driving force behind temperature changes. But what?
So, why are temperatures fluctuating?
Changes in temperature, either in the recent or distant past, are a result of the natural changes in the earth’s weather patterns as a result of their design by an omnipotent, infinitely wise Creator. On this point, Batten says, “Earth’s climate was designed neither to be chaotic nor prone to extreme changes. Imposed on an overall stable climate are smaller natural cycles.”[17]
These natural cycles account for the temperature variations seen in the past (Roman Warming Period, Medieval Warming Period, variations in the 20th century) and what has occurred since the 1800s, following the Industrial Revolution.
Takeaways
On the whole, the data does not support widespread panic about the future of the earth. Actual temperature rises are far lower than the climate industry promotes, the increases actually provide benefits to the earth and its human population, and temperature fluctuations are not influenced in any significant way by human activity, such as the use of fossil fuels.
Furthermore, the Creator has given us his word that the climate will remain steady overall and provided a profound example of its ability to rebound from environmental shocks, the Global Flood of Noah's time.
Therefore, we should focus our efforts on level-headed, responsible care for our environment, but we should not give in to radical, expensive, and destructive actions demanded by climate alarmists. On the contrary, we must fight their ideas as they lead to the loss of freedom, the increase of poverty, and the rise of fear.
OTHER RESOURCES:
*Please use these in your preaching and teaching ministry.
Full list of climate resources recommended by Prophet Scholar
Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less, by Alex Epstein, 2022, Amazon
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner, 2007, Amazon
"Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)—A Biblical and Scientific Approach to Climate Change," by Don Batten, Creation.com
"A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming," by Rod Martin, Answers in Genesis Research Journal
NOTES:
[1] “What Is Climate Change?” by the United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change.
[2] “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models,” by Roy Spencer, 2024. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models.
[3] Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity, by John Christy, 2017, as quoted in “Climate Models vs. Measured Temperature Data,” by Climate at a Glance. https://climateataglance.com/climate-models-vs-measured-temperature-data/. Christy’s research can be found at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0070-z.
[4] "Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)—A Biblical and Scientific Approach to Climate Change," by Don Batten, 2024. https://creation.com/climate-change.
[5] “The US Climate in 2019,” by Paul Homewood, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2019. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/US-Climate-2019.pdf.
[6] Don Batten, 2024. See earlier reference detail. All bullet points in this section come from this source.
[7] Temperature claims about any time period before satellite measurement began (the 1970s) is highly suspect. Before this time, things like tree rings, ice cores, and pollen counts are used to estimate temperature. Even a layman would understand that trying to accurately determine global temperature through these means is highly inaccurate and should not be relied upon.
Furthermore, attempting to estimate global temperature thousands of years ago is utterly impossible. The data reported in these bullet points will use the data suggested for these ancient periods, but, in reality, they should not be given any significant credence or be used to make decisions today.
[8] Don Batten, 2024. See earlier reference detail. All bullet points in this section come from this source.
[9] “A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming,” by Rod Martin, Answers Research Journal, 2010. https://answersresearchjournal.org/bible-science-global-warming/. Both points from this paragraph were taken from this source.
[10] “Climate Change Saves More Lives Than You’d Think,” by Bjorn Lomborg, Wall Street Journal, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-heat-cold-deaths-medical-journal-health-risk-energy-cost-fossil-fuels-11631741045.
[11] “Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you,” by Dean Kuipers, 2011, Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/greenspace/story/2011-11-18/greenhouse-gases-water-vapor-and-you.
[12] Don Batten, 2024. See earlier reference detail.
[13] Same as previous.
[14] Dean Kuipers' post referred to in note 11 provides two reasons why water vapor is left out of climate discussions. First, it is difficult to measure and frequently changes. He quotes a source on this point, “Folks are right when they state water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and not routinely measured directly in the atmosphere. Atmospheric water vapor is difficult to measure, highly reactive, and variable in amount due to meteorological conditions (i.e., atmospheric water vapor is continuously being generated from evaporation and continuously removed by condensation).”
Second, water vapor is not a root cause of temperature changes; manmade greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are. Again, he quotes a source to establish this:
While some of the things we do change water vapor directly, they are insignificant. Increasing ghg’s [sic] [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback [meaning: the more greenhouse gases, the more water vapor, the higher the temperature]. But the root cause are ghg’s [sic]. So in talking about what is changing the climate, changes in water vapor are not a root cause.
Regarding his first reason, I would ask: Does the fact that something is hard to measure mean you don't measure it at all? Is CO2, methane, or nitrous oxide easy to measure? If one phenomenon has a 95% impact on what you are studying, something that, according to your own statements, is of paramount importance to the existence of the human race, shouldn't you make the effort to figure out how to measure it?
This is a convenient excuse to skip over water vapor and focus on the predetermined cause, one that fits the broader agenda of the climate industry, as the comments in the next three paragraphs will help demonstrate.
Regarding the second reason, this is a classic example of circular reasoning. CO2 is the cause of temperature rises, so water vapor can't be the cause of temperature rises, because CO2 is the cause of temperature rises.
His source claims water vapor is not a root cause, but he does not prove that. CO2's influence over water vapor may exist, but that does not prove that it is the only thing that influences water vapor. If it is not measured and studied, how can we be sure what actually influences it?
Some of the points raised in this article, like the inconsistency between the rise of CO2 levels and temperature changes since the 1800s, suggests that CO2 is not a root cause and water vapor could be significantly affected by things that have nothing to do with man's activities.
[15] Don Batten, 2024. See earlier reference detail.
[16] Same as previous.
[17] Same as previous.