Thursday, November 29, 2007

Man-Made Global Warming: Hot Air, Hype, and Honest Science--A Biblical Response (Part 1)

The moment one expresses doubt regarding all the popular promotions of man-made global warming (MGW) the assaults begin. Statements like "He doesn't believe in global warming" and "He sees nothing wrong with polluting the planet" begin to surface. Let me unequivocally state from the outset, though I doubt all the hype related to MGW, that doesn't mean I don't believe in global warming. On the contrary, the earth has warmed by .67C degrees (or 1.2 F). But the big question is, is this man-made or just the ebb-and-flow of natural causes and cycles?

Secondly, I am not in any way advocating trashing God's wonderful creation we enjoy. Quite the opposite, I believe we need to be good stewards and custodians of the environment without allowing it to control us, and without exchanging worship of the Creator for that of the creation (Romans 1:18-32). What most don't realize is that CO2 is not a pollutant, it simply isn't toxic. The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 is the result of oceanic evaporation (98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere).

Psalm 8 is wonderful example of what God expects from man concerning our care-taker responsibilities of all He spoke into existence. Psalm 8 hearkens back to Genesis 1:26-28 where it is said that we (man) were created with the primary responsibility to care for and tend the rest of creation. From the very beginning humanity was tasked with dominion, which is expressed in both ruling and subduing. As Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill notes, the ruling and subduing are very strong verbs in the original Hebrew, which essentially mean that man was created with the functional duty of "treading down" creation. Implied here is the residential idea of the coming fall in Genesis 3. Unarguably, dominion became exponentially more complicated with the entrance of sin into the equation. Interestingly, God never revoked man's primary earthly responsibility of dominion, even in light of Genesis 3! Now, in a post-fall world, all of creation groans and travails in the convulsive aftermath of sin. This makes our current dominion mandate all the more arduous and tenable, but not entirely impossible.

It is my contention that what is really driving the MGW train has more to do with politics and the New Age movement than real science. What better way for neo-marxists, like Al Gore, to finally exert the kind of governmental power and comprehensive control they desire then through environmental issues? The draconian legislation being proposed by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) will significantly increase both the reach of government and expand their tax coffers. Capitalism and the free market as we now know it will be drastically altered and impaired by big brother bureaucrats around the globe.

Add to the above, the pronounced New Age influence. Environmentalist tend to favor New Age spirituality because of its pantheistic center (God is all and all is God). For this reason, the enviros see man as the number one enemy, because we are encroaching on the environment (creation), which is their sacrosanct shrine. Since the environment is sacred to them, protecting it--even at the expense of humanity--is a solemn sacrament and a cardinal tenant of their nature based faith. This view dramatically collides with the Bible. Psalm 8 makes it clear that man is to look up at God not to confine one's gaze to the earth beneath. When man fails to look up, this earth is all there is. As Romans 1:18-32 reminds us, we then become subservient to creation instead of the creator, with our priorities drastically out of balance. In short, the MGW promoters are trying bring man under the dominion of creation rather than the other way around!

In final analysis, we are called of God, the Sovereign of the universe, to manage the sky, the earth, and the sea (Psalm 8:5-8). This must not be reversed. In the end, do we really think we can change and affect weather? Only Almighty God can achieve this (Mark 4:35-41). Therefore, weather happens, whether we like it or not.

The following is a brief assessment of some of the science involved in this debate. These two letters were recently published in The Cape Argus :

Dear Editor,

Tragically the lopsided scaremongering tactics by the SA media, government, and education department, on man-made global warming have produced the predictable response evidenced by Vuyo Mabandla (People are clueless on climate change 15-10-07). It is precisely because the masses are clueless that they are “freaked out”.

I would like to assure Mabandla that he will keep his scalp for yet another day. The alleged iceberg off the coast of St. Francis is not the first iceberg spotted off SA’s coastal shores. In fact, Captain James Horsburgh, a hydrographer for the East India Company, wrote about numerous iceberg sightings off our shores between 1828-1830 (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 120, [1830], pp.117-120).

Horsburgh noted in 1830, “It appears that icebergs, until lately, have seldom been seen by navigators in their passage near the Cape of Good Hope and the coast of South Africa.” Some of the sightings reported sizable ice flows that towered 300 feet above the water and were 2 miles in circumference. How can this be? Remember there were no petrol guzzling SUV’s then!

No doubt, Mabandla has been further influenced by Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore and his propaganda piece “An Inconvenient Truth” (AIT). Mabandla can rest easy where Gore is concerned. What Mabandla hasn’t been told is that just last week, in the UK, a court ruled that Gore’s documentary is as inaccurate as it is misleading (probably why he won the Nobel Prize).

The judge determined that if Gore’s movie is to be shown in UK schools, the learners must properly be informed of two things: First, the movie is not about science but politics. AIT is a lopsided propaganda piece that is not meant to inform, but to politically indoctrinate.

Secondly, the judge highlighted 11 gross inaccuracies (and there are far more) in Gore’s “science” that must be highlighted to learners if the movie is shown. From Lake Chad, to the retreating glaciers on Kilimanjaro, and even the 4 dead seals, the movie is an unqualified farce hardly worthy of honest science.

Like all SA’s learners, Mabandla has been led to believe that high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have produced a corresponding rise in temperatures. Therefore, we must legislate to regulate CO2 emissions. But the UK judge concluded, contrary to Gore, that there is a convincing body of evidence which states the rise in CO2 levels is actually the result of a preceding increase in temperature.

This makes complete sense when one considers the earth has been thawing out from the Little Ice Age (1400—1850 AD) for the last 150 years. As the temperature has increased (.67C), correspondingly so have water evaporation levels (H2O evaporation accounts for 96% of our atmospheric CO2). If the current CO2 levels are the result of the rise in temperature, then what can we do to curb water evaporation? Absolutely nothing.

According to some leading climatologists, who will never be heard in the mainstream media, there is every reason to believe the modest rise in temperature is part of the natural ebb-and-flow of creation. Sadly, SA’s learners aren’t presented this side of the debate. Instead, learners are force-fed Gore’s science fiction as fact. So much for open-mindedness and the free exchange of ideas, which are supposed to be the hallmarks of true education.

I would like Mabandla to rest well tonight by considering this: If the same people who are chortling about man-made climate change can’t even get the 5 day forecast right, then what are the odds their 100 year predictions of doom-and-gloom are correct?

Mark Christopher

Dear Editor,

Len Stevens (A wake-up call to young people everywhere, 22-10-07) poisons the well with his straw-man claim that the politically correct version of man-made global warming is “irrefutable science”.

Stevens’ egregious assertion is predicated on the faulty assumption that the computer generated climate models are infallible—never mind the great disparity between these models.

The reason for climate model fallibility is simple, weather is a very complex system. All complex systems, like the financial markets, have a multitude of unaccounted for variables which affect the outcome of the predictions. This makes it impossible to accurately predict the ultimate results.

In order to accurately gauge the future of climate change, the current models would need to factor in all of the following variables into their equation: solar variation, gravity, pressure, temperature, density, humidity, clouds, topography, rotation of the Earth, the sea’s changing currents, greenhouse gases, and CO2 dissolved in the oceans—to name a few of the needed variables. The current models are unable to include all of these vital factors, because they are either unknown or ever changing.

The dirty little secret regarding climate models is when one attempts to test them, they fail, sometimes spectacularly so. For this reason, climatologist Patrick Michaels concludes that reliance on climate models amounts to “scientific malpractice”!

All of this hardly makes for “irrefutable science”. Such a claim is as narrow minded as it is irresponsible. As Mark Twain once said, “I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life and most of it never came to pass.” All the present PC hype about man-made global warming will prove no different.

(Open-minded learners looking for information about websites and articles refuting the PC propaganda regarding this issue can contact me at:

Mark Christopher

I can only conclude the sky will not fall, nor will the earth spin off its axis because of man. We might harm the environment (all because of sin), but we can't destroy the earth. Only God can do that. When it is all said and done, someday there will be God-induced Global Warming (GGW)! "10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness ..." (2 Peter 3:1--11).

Until then, we need to promote and serve Him and His gospel, not the dogmas of earth worshipping idolaters!

*Note: Pastor Mark will be writing a 60 page booklet on this subject in the next few weeks, which should be available early in 2008!

Friday, November 23, 2007

What's Love Got To Do With It?

Subsequent to Desmond Tutu's vitriolic attack on the truth surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the debate was once again revived in the papers here in South Africa. Predictably use of the "God is love" argument was copiously employed to silence critics of the gay rights movement in the church. I have always found it amusing that people who never open the cover of a Bible all of a sudden find need to quote from it to advance their cause. Why don't they ever quote from the Koran? Sad that those who use this argument have no concept of God's love. Those who try to leverage this "God is love" logic assume that love is pure emotion. Below is my response to such fallacious thinking :

Dear Editor,

There is no dispute that God is love (God’s love unbiased, Mark Kleinschmidt, and Love your neighbor, Sharon Cox 22-11-07). What is never discussed, when this argument is inveighed as a trump card to promote gay rights, is love’s definition and context.

Both Kleinschmidt and Cox set sail on the choppy sea of subjectivity and relativism with their respective utilitarian notions of God’s love. Because God is a complex of attributes, to include His infinite holiness, righteousness, justice, grace and mercy—not just love—His love must be defined within the broader context of these respective characteristics. Wrenched from these other qualities, God’s love is subjectivised and infused with soppy sentiment. This is not love, but wishful thinking.

The logical conclusion of the Kleinschmidt-Cox equation for love is that almost any behaviour or lifestyle can be justified and validated by invoking the “God is love” argument. Many an adulterer has rationalized their sin by quoting “Love your neighbor as yourself”. But God's love is not a blank check. Once other attributes, like holiness, are added to the love matrix, love takes on moral parameters and ethical imperatives, grounded in the whole of God’s person.

The Bible also says “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:16) and “…holiness, without which, no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14). Unless holiness, along with the rest of God’s attributes, is factored into the definition of love, love will be reduced to ambiguity and arbitrariness.

Until one is willing to repent of what the Bible labels sin (adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, murder, rape, pride, corruption, homosexuality … etc…) on the basis of the person and finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, no one can honestly claim they are loving God and their neighbor as themselves. The good news is that God is neither biased nor prejudice. All who seek Him on His terms will find forgiveness and true love. Only then will the world truly be better place!

Rev. Mark Christopher
Living Hope Bible Church

One Flew Over The Tutu's Nest!

This past week saw former Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu, libel all who disagree with his pro-gay position. He used the same old worn-out arguments to try and advance his cause. The sum of Tutu's rant was that he refuses to worship a "homophobic God". It seems, then, his only other alternative is to worship the god of this world. Though it would not be an accurate statement to say God is homophobic, it is correct to assert that God is anti-sin--as argued below.

True to form, Tutu invoked the gay orientation argument. Robbed of this salvo, the gay rights movement would fall flat in a blink. Yet, I know of no DNA test ever performed that was able to discern one's sexual preferences through DNA testing! Being gay is simply not the same as one's skin color. To claim such is disingenuous. It is an emotive argument devoid of any concrete proof.

Below is my public response to Tutu's outrage:

Dear Editor;

In his latest bloviating diatribe (I wouldn’t worship an anti-gay God—Tutu) Desmond Tutu gave a clinic on the use of ad hominem logic. Tutu’s hurling of acerbic invectives at his detractors is a favorite smoke-screen to cloud the weakness of his own arguments on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Tutu’s transvalued (calling good evil and evil good) viewpoint on this issue has far more in common with a postmodern, pluralistic culture than the Bible. For Tutu to argue as he does, he must supplant the Bible with the popular interposing of a politically correct culture. To achieve this, he, like many today, must ignore the obvious and argue the ridiculous. This he has done well!

The question arising from Tutu’s tantrum is whether or not God is “anti-gay”? Rather, the question should be is God anti-sin (adultery, fornication, lying, theft, corruption, pride, homosexuality etc…)? The answer is an unequivocal, Yes.

Because God is a complex of attributes, to include His infinite holiness, righteousness, and justice—not just love--He will not “welcome” any sin into His presence. This is precisely why God sent His only begotten Son to die and serve as the perfect sacrifice for humanity’s sin. For those who repent from their sin on the basis of Christ’s finished work on the cross, there is forgiveness and the eternal embrace of a welcoming God! But God only welcomes those who come on His terms.

Therefore, the real question isn’t is God anti-gay, but is Tutu pro-God?

For those who would like to receive a copy of my book Same-Sex Marriage:Is It Really The Same?, please contact me at

Rev. Mark Christopher