I have always had a niggling doubt in the back of my mind about the veracity of global warming. How could the tiny machinations of man impact the massiveness of our planet in such a dramatic way in so short a time? I wrote a little about my thoughts on the whole issue back when I reviewed Michael Crichton’s thriller, State of Fear. (You can read an ABC News article on it here.) By the way, the title is an apropos description of what the global warming crowd would like to create.
Now it seems that another leading scientific think tank is taking the offense by opening up dialogue in its journal Physics & Society. The American Physical Society had initially been sucked into supporting the politically-charged agenda of global warming but now is backing away from it, it seems.
One of the early contributions to the journal is Victor Monckton, the science advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s administration in Britain. He says:
“I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC’s [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central ‘climate sensitivity’ question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method.” (italics mine)
In a summary article on this, Powerline says:
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, “in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low.”
Monckton… says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”
This news does not bode well for liberal political activists which have tried to made global warming an issue in this election season. If the legs are knocked out from under global warming like those of traditional evolution, what will they have to stand on any longer? I guess their opinions need to evolve to become truly scientific rather than emotional interpretations of what they would like to be fact.
Is it the wrath of God?
Francis Schaeffer in Death in the City had a different interpretation in 1968 of why bad things might be happening environmentally – from tsunamis to tornadoes to floods to hurricanes to earthquakes. He suggested that the insurance companies might be more correct than we allow. Call them “acts of God,” he would say:
“Not all that occurs in space-time history is explainable on the basis of natural causes and effect, for example, economic, military, and psychological forces.”
He goes on to point to Romans 1.18-19 where the apostle Paul writes:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (ESV)
Schaeffer prophetically declares,
“There is only one perspective we can have of the post-Christian world of our generation: an understanding that our culture and our country is under the wrath of God. Our country is under the wrath of God. Northern European culture is under the wrath of God.”
Whew. Wrath of God is not politically-correct or inspiring stuff. But it may give us insight as to why some of the things are happening that others interpreted global warming as being responsible for. Destruction, disaster and devastation. Are they being poured out from heaven as from a bowl on cultures that have turned their back on the living God after having affirmed Him as their foundation?