A Christian Response to the ‘Green’ Movement
Written by Henry Sikkema
|Reformed Worldviews - Environment|
There are so many ideas vying for our attention, money and even for our worship in this modern age. Much of what we see on the television, Internet and all around us in music, fashion, sports movies is a great distraction to our real purpose in this life which is to glorify our God and Maker Jesus Christ. The same has happened in the area of science and more specifically the environmental movement dealing with climate change and global warming. There is much confusion in this area. We have questions like: who do we believe?, what is truly going on?, how will this affect me and my children? These are good questions but a most important question is What is the right and Godly thing to do – how do we respond?
We need some definitions to be clear on what we are discussing. I’ll try to stay away from the detailed science but there is no way around some of the technical details. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s the term global warming was very popular and was used to describe the changes in temperature occurring all around the Earth. Global warming is an overall warming of the atmosphere and oceans by a few degrees. The claim is that global warming can cause the polar ice caps to melt, more severe droughts and hurricanes, an increase in sea levels and the spread of disease – ultimately killing many millions of people and destroying the Earth.[i] A less controversial name used is climate change. This has the advantage of not claiming outright the direction, nature nor cause of the change. However since man is so intelligent, the claim is that we are able to cause problems and we are able to solve problems. This is the root of the latest phrase: anthropogenic global warming (AGW). AGW is at its core global warming that is cause by man and his actions through industrialization and emissions. This is the driving force behind the slogan on a film shown in the opening ceremonies at the December 2009 Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen: “We have the power to change the world. Now.”[ii],[iii] The director of the film says “We have made a film which speaks to the heart rather than to the brain.”[iv]
Recent Events in the Green Movement
In recent years, there has been a growing body of evidence and this exploded in November 2009 with a release of thousands of communications between scientists, policy makers and politicians. These emails reveal fraud[v], data manipulation[vi],[vii],[viii], out right lying to the policy makers[ix] and the public and refusal to comply with requests for original data[x] and their modelling techniques[xi]. In short, the entire global warming and anthropogenic global warming issues have come to a crashing halt in terms of the science. In fact, the Earth is not warming according to five global temperature monitoring sites (with unmodified data) but has been cooling for at least nine years![xii],[xiii] The science simply does not support any of the global warming and certainly not the AGW alarmists. This is where the rational stops and the emotional and political begin.
Why is there such a great push to support global warming? The most common idea is the pantheistic view of the universe – the Earth is a god (or at least a living being – I’m sure you have heard of Mother Earth). The Earth must be saved from any form of destruction and especially destruction caused by mankind. For many, this is the thinking that goes into the green movement. For the common person like you and me, until recently we were told that the Earth is warming up and that man is the cause of this warming. As we saw previously, the science does not back up the global warming theory and there is even less evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). So if the science does not back up the green movement, then what makes people support it? As you can likely guess, it gives people a warm fuzzy for doing something that saves the world. It looks good in the media to save the seals, polar bears and rain forests. But as we said, the science does not back any of this up. There has to be more to it than just getting a warm fuzzy! It is at least partially a craving for power and money by a few people in high places. One man that everyone knows has benefited financially from this movement is Al Gore. He has earned at least $100 million from 2000 to 2008 directly from the global warming hysteria. The original December 2009 Copenhagen Treaty referenced a world governing body[xiv] and this has been the aim of the UN for some time.[xv] Despite the non-existent case for global warming and AGW, the Obama Administration plans on moving ahead with expensive cap-and-trade legislation that Obama admits will cause energy costs to skyrocket. The carbon tax could cost every man, woman and child on Earth up to about $1400 each year![xvi],[xvii] This is bigger than the oil industry. We see that a driving factor in the green movement is the power to be gained by a select few and there is little to be gained by the general populous. “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[xviii] The green movement, in the name of science, does not point us to saving the environment but ignorance in the public, giving the public a warm fuzzy and a few power and money hungry people drive us all to spend billions and trillions of dollars to pad their pockets.
The New Ontario Science Curriculum
Recently the Ontario Ministry of Education released new Science Curriculum for high schools in Ontario. This new curriculum will be used by all public schools and many other schools across the province for the next number of years. Quoting from the Ministry of Eduction Curriculum document released in fall 2008, “The increased emphasis on relating science to technology, society, and the environment (STSE) within this curriculum document provides numerous opportunities for teachers to integrate environmental education effectively into the curriculum.”[xix] In the four main strands found in the new curriculum, the new first overall expectation is “to relate science to technology, society, and the environment”. This has its greatest effect on the grade 10 curriculum where students are expected to, for example, “design and build a model to illustrate the natural greenhouse effect, and use the model to explain the anthropogenic greenhouse effect”[xx] Without the mainstream media passing along information about the fraud and data manipulation that went into supporting AGW and the real facts behind the green movement, teachers and students Ontario-wide will be used as pawns in the hands of the people who stand to gain millions or billions of dollars and much power from the upcoming generation. Hopefully unknowingly, the government produced a new curriculum which will be used for the next nine years even though the facts do not support the underlying philosophy.
The Christian Response
So where does this leave us? All the recent environmental upheaval does not change the position of the Christian in the least! We have always claimed to be concerned with the environment. We clearly do not worship the environment but rather worship the Creator. We are on God’s property and we are obligated to keep the atmosphere, waters and land clean. This is what drives the Christian’s thoughts towards the environment. A Christian should be the best keepers of the environment of all people because we know that we belong to God and the Earth does too.
The new curriculum does give an informed science teacher and particularly a Christian science teacher many opportunities to discuss the underlying motives and methods used in the current climate pseudo-science today. There are many topics related to climate change (tree ring dating, ice cores, solar structure, planetary warming cycles, polar ice volumes, glaciation etc.) that can be addressed and discussed from a Christian perspective without being bogged down in emotionalism and irrationalism. The fraudulent methods used, as revealed in the climategate scandal, can and should be discussed as methods that anyone, any scientist, especially Christians, should never use.
Henry Sikkema, MSc, B.Ed is a Science Teacher at Rehoboth Christian School in Copetown, ON. This article was previously printed in the FRC Youth Messenger and has been republished here with permission.
[i] IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 2007. accessed 2009 Dec 22. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf.
[iii] Canadian Centre for Energy Information. 2009 Dec 7. accessed 2010 Jan 28. http://www.centreflow.ca/category/all_about_energy/page/2.
[iv] Poulsen, Mikkel Blaabjerg. Post-Apocalyptic Video Opens Climate-Change Conference. Wired. 2009 Dec 7. accessed 2009 Dec 22. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/12/post-apocalyptic-video-opens-climate-change-conference.
[v] Jones, Phil. Email. 2004 July 8. accessed 2009 Nov 30. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt.
[vi] Jones, Phil. Email. 1999 Nov 16. accessed 2010 Jan 12. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt.
[vii] O’Sullivan, John. Crooked climatologists drop 806 (cold?) weather stations in a single year. 2010 Jan 5. accessed 2010 Jan 26. http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year.
[viii] Climate scientists accused of ‘manipulating global warming data’. The Daily Telegraph. 2009 Nov 21. accessed 2009 Nov 24. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html.
[ix] Eden, Michael. Emails: Global Warming ‘Science’ Exposed As The Lie It Has Been All Along. 2009 Nov 20. accessed 2010 Jan 14. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt.
[x] Jones, Phil. Email. 2005 Jan 21. accessed 2010 Jan 12. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=.txt.
[xi] Fuller, Thomas. How Climategate broke the Hockey Stick’s blade and shaft. 2010 Jan 18. accessed 2010 Jan 26. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/6123-how-climategate-broke-the-hockey-sticks-blade-and-shaft.
[xii] Monte Heib, Climate Change Fraud. 2010. accessed 2010 Jan 26. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/temperate-facts/greenhouse-faqs/measuring-temperature.
[xiii] Whitehouse, David. Has global warming stopped? 2007 Dec 19. accessed 2010 Jan 27. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/has_GW_stopped.pdf.
[xiv] United Nations and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2009 Sept. accessed 2009 Dec 22. http://www.globalclimatescam.com/documents/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf.
[xvi] Nova, Joanne, Climate Money. Science and Public Policy Institute, 2009 July 21, pg 15. accessed 2010 Jan 27. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf.
[xvii] Hoft, Jim. It Pays to Go Green!. 2009 Apr 26. accessed 2009 Dec 22. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/04/it-pays-to-go-green-al-gores-net-worth-jumps-from-2-million-in-2000-to-100-million-in-2008.
[xviii] Stewart, Christine then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, 1998, and quoted by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda,” Financial Post, 26 December 1998, from the Calgary Herald, December, 14, 1998. Cited by Singer, S. Fred Avery, Dennis T. Unstoppable Global Warming. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007., page 4.
[xix] Ontario Ministry of Education, Science9 and 10 Curriculum 2008 Page 38
[xx] Science 10 Curriculum Objective D2.2, pg 79.