God Has Pitched a Tent for the Sun: Climate Change and the Bible, Part II

“Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun” (Psalm 19:4).

Corrupt Climate Science

We continue our examination of what the Bible has to say about “climate change.” Is there a global climate crisis? Indeed, we are dealing here with a heavily contested topic, one that is ground zero for global policy and geopolitical leverage.

Alarmingly, global climate fears continue to escalate. Doomsters are winning! We are continually being barraged by shrieks of hysteria.

However, are there contrary views to consider? Yes—for one, the Bible. Secondly, a group of scientists that have contrary views to the “global climate consensus.”

What Non-Consensus Scientists Say

There indeed are other voices and other climate theories. As it happens, we focus on the one that seems most audacious … the one that directly refutes the “main plank” of the establishment consensus; namely, that it is higher CO2 levels that cause global warming.

This contrary view argues that rising temperature is the cause of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

Really? Can there be such a large schism between revered and accredited “scientists”? It may be difficult to believe that such opposite views could exist in the modern world of science. Some say higher emissions lead to hotter climates; the refuters say the exact opposite is true.

The major reason for the divergent views is the role of the sun and ancient weather history. The sun is the center of our solar system; and, of course, the world is dependent upon it.

The earth’s position and movements relative to the sun establish seasons, temperature, and weather changes. It, therefore, would not be surprising if “climate change” is prominently attributable to the sun.

The earth has an elliptical orbit around the sun that is tilted 23.5 degrees, 3.5 degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. This tilt changes over time. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years (according to one study), the tilt of the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees.

Because of these tilt changes, the weather patterns as we know them do fluctuate. This leads to large climate variances and extremes over time, as indeed has been the case since the dawn of history. There has always been climate change. As the Bible says: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9b).

We will further examine some of the alternate views. We will not fear countering the consensus. After all, God is not much impressed with the “consensus” views of mankind. The Lord says, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'” Isaiah 55:8-9).

And indeed, the sun is much higher than the earth.

Alternate Views of Brave Scientists

Let us next briefly review the weather/climate history studies of the non-consensus naysayers. (We rely here on articles written by Katie Spence for the Epoch Times.)

To begin, consider Dr. Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa. He agrees, saying that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which itself is due to solar activity.

Also directly contrary, Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, says that: “CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2.”

Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, also examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years. Dr. Jackson is a distinguished researcher and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis. He specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres. Dr. Jackson’s paper, published in 2017, found that “changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature changes in the ancient climate.”

Why do these scholars come up with such different perspectives—directly opposite to the “esteemed consensus” of the majority of the science community?

A major difference is the fact that their “alternate” view is based on studies of history and the effects of the solar system.

Crucially, consider one of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research, paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions). This relies on indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records; in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the earth’s water throughout history.

According to Dr. Clark: “The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now.”

Mr. Clark claims that scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature history during recent ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, thanks to proxy records (i.e. tree rings and others). For instance, such records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than we are experiencing today. During that time, agriculture and civilization flourished. That is also occurring today. As documented by a rising Leaf Index, agriculture productivity has improved. After all, CO2 is necessary for plants to grow.

According to Dr. Clark’s research, about every 1,000 years or so, weather patterns seem to have these fluctuations. He says, “This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”

Christopher Essex, emeritus professor of applied mathematics and physics at the University of Western Ontario (who was also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Academic Advisory Council), comments: “It’s just about hyping up anxiety and fear so the people will go along with things and not question what’s going on. There’s so much going on in the atmosphere. It’s complex, conductive, and turbulent.”

We could quote additional studies that support the view that Earth’s temperature follows the trend in CO2, not the other way around.

No one will disagree that the sun has an all-encompassing influence on planet Earth. It is the center of our solar system and produces such earthly phenomena as the annual seasons, temperature changes, gravitational pull, volatile sun flares, radio waves, and much more.

In short, the sun impacts virtually everything on Earth. As such, it is surprising that the science community does not focus more on the sun’s impact on climate change (and historical temperature data).

The sun is doing what it was created to do. It is not experiencing a crisis.

To this point, before moving on, we briefly draw the following conclusions:

• Incredibly, that “climate fighters” today are barking up the wrong tree. Their assumptions—and, therefore, their recommendations—are incorrect. Yet, they have convinced policymakers and politicians around the world to spend multi-trillions of dollars on solutions that are not guaranteed to be effective.
• That, for the most part, climate changes are natural. They are driven predominantly by the solar system and the orbit of the earth. Hence, there is no “climate crisis.” Trends can reverse, as they have historically.
• The earth will not burn up in a ball of fire. Obviously, this has not happened before … even though global temperatures were much higher in the past.
• Climate changes are a natural occurrence. This will assuredly continue in the future.

Young Earth Invalidation?

An explanation may be required, as some of the scientists quoted in this article series have cited long timeframes … i.e. 10,000 years, 40,000 years … etc. Those who subscribe to the young-earth view may protest. Indeed, this is a contested view. How can something show a 100,000-year history when the age of the earth is only circa-6,000 years old today?

Personally, this writer sees no problem here. I note that most people who hold to Creationism automatically presume that God created the world instantly at time-point zero. All systems would have started at a fully mature state. Lakes would have already been full of water … before any rain would fall. Mountain rivers would be instantly stocked with rainbow trout.

All the above sounds correct and plausible to the Creationist. However, could one not just as well presume that the world is shown at an age that is different from the creation date?

This may sound confusing. Allow us to explain with an example. What might one conclude about the age of Adam when he was created—the first man? Clearly, according to the Bible, he was created at zero years old. However, anyone examining Adam at that time would have identified him as a mature male.

They would therefore deduce that he was perhaps 100 years old or so, assuming a lifespan of near 1,000 years before the Flood. The scientist would say that Adam appeared to be much older than his creation date.

This example illustrates that God the Creator is not limited to chronological time. As such, God can also create mountains that appear to be much older than their actual birthdate. A scientist drilling up ice cores could plausibly see 20,000 years of snow layers, though the actual creation date was only 6,000 years ago. That is entirely possible. He is the God of the Impossible. If He is indeed the Creator, this does not add any difficulty for Him.

This then begs the question: What came first … the chicken or the egg? The answer? Neither. Both were created on the same day. Taking this view, this writer is not troubled by the long dates mentioned by the paleoclimatologists.

***

Wilfred J. Hahn is a global economist/strategist. Formerly a top-ranked global analyst, research director for a major Wall Street investment bank, and head of Canada’s largest global investment operation, his writings focus on the endtime roles of money, economics and globalization. He has been quoted around the world and his writings reproduced in numerous other publications and languages. His 2002 book The Endtime Money Snare: How to live free accurately anticipated and prepared its readers for the Global Financial Crisis. A following book, Global Financial Apocalypse Prophesied: Preserving true riches in an age of deception and trouble, looks further into the prophetic future.

Do you have questions or other perspectives? You can contact Wilfred at: staff@eternalvalue.com. Please note that for reasons of volume and investment securities regulation, he cannot give financial advice.

 

God Has Pitched a Tent for the Sun¹: Climate Change and the Bible, Part 1 :: By Wilfred Hahn

“Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun” (Psalm 19:4).

“Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?” (Proverbs 6:28).

This writer ventures to answer “No.” We are dealing here with a heavily contested topic these days, one that is ground zero for global policy and geopolitical leverage. It is climate change. Expressing our views, most surely, our feet will be held to the fire.

Critically, global climate fears continue to escalate. Alarmists are winning! Quoting a recent snippet from The Guardian, “The climate disaster is here. Earth is already becoming unlivable.” We are being barraged by such shrieks of hysteria continually.

And so, hyped reporting and histrionic headlines are enflaming existential worries for humans across the globe. So much so, in fact, that according to surveys, as much as a third of the younger generation are reluctant to have children. Reports National Geographic, “Climate anxiety is widespread among youth.”

Why this view? Simplistically, if the world is going to burn up in a ball of fire, why have kids? If anything, having more humans will simply make conditions worse, in their perspective.

According to surveys (e.g., YouGov—International Climate Change Survey), most people around the world today believe that the climate is changing, that it is a crisis, and that human activity is mainly responsible.

Particularly effective in stirring up climate panic are claims that developments have reached all-time extremes—levels never before experienced on planet Earth. For example, the IEA (International Energy Agency) reported that the average surface temperature on Earth has reached a new “all-time” high. Yes, an all-time high. Documentation for this claim, however, is lacking.

Reports of this kind are aimed at roiling people’s emotions and are typically biased. This plays into supporting the initiatives of governments and organizations that claim they can “stand against” global warming. But truly, can this be done? Is this realistic?

To answer, we must first understand the science behind such claims … what is known or unknown … what is unproven theory, and what is not. Above all, we want to know why facts (the truth) are often deviously slanted by policymakers.

In regard to the claim cited by the IEA—that surface temperatures have reached new highs—this is another case of egregious hyperbole for several reasons. For one, how far back into history must one probe to support such claims … 20 years, 2,000 years, or more? Evidence (which we will shortly review) says otherwise. Many more such exaggerations could be illustrated and debunked.

A frustrating question then is this: In this whole debate, what to believe and what not? Making this much more difficult, it must be acknowledged that the topic of global climate is very difficult and tangled to discuss for anyone, scientist or not.

An influential book on this topic, written by Steven E. Koonin, sets the tone correctly in its title: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters. Frankly, as he states, much theory, facts, statistics, and scientific interpretation remain “unsettled.” Nevertheless, we can seek balance and identify what is unproven.

What must be understood currently, in our view, is why unproven (false) theories and solutions are accepted and hyped to justify “fighting global warming.” Untold trillions of dollars are being marshaled to fund unproven solutions. This is unwise both economically and ethically.

These rancorous responses to “global warming” will cause many bad repercussions over the long term. Some of these are already beginning to manifest … e.g., high imbedded inflation, increasingly high global indebtedness, wealth distribution extremes, loss of freedom, etc.

Eventually, a doozie of a global economic depression must be expected.

Alternate Theory Warriors

Many observers are convinced that mankind’s industrial boom over past centuries is the prime cause of rising emissions and global warming. To date, there is no valid, conclusive proof that this might be the case. It is a view based upon an unproven hypothesis. As such, it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that mankind can change the general climate of the entire world with any precision, if at all.

It is not widely known (in fact, often repressed) that there exist some very plausible counterarguments. Unfortunately (and often deliberately), these counterviews are given short shrift in the public eye.

Thankfully, despite there being a fervent so-called “global scientific consensus” that scorns alternative perspectives, there do exist a number of independent climate researchers. They need to be brave. Why? They are frequently attacked and ridiculed … no matter the merit of their opinions. It is similar to the treatment that Creationists typically receive. Their views are often suppressed and scorned, and they may even be fired from tenured university positions, though the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid … in fact, far from it.

Personal Views: Science and Me

Fifty years ago, I enrolled in Honors Science at the University of Waterloo (located in Ontario, Canada). I loved science—biology, histology, chemistry, physics … etc.—and graduated cum laude with a B.Sc. two years later.

Thanks to my wife for her PHT degree (putting hubby through), I was able to study in my summer semesters and complete the general science degree earlier.

Perhaps surprising, given my science major, I never did buy into the Theory of Evolution. Why? Because, to my mind at the time, it was not scientific. There were no conclusive proofs … no uncontested facts … it was simply far beyond probability. And indeed, the theory of evolution is exactly that—a theory, a far-fetched theory at that.

But that is not where the problem lies, however. What is most egregious is that evolution is not taught as theory but rather as fact. Doing so is deceitful and corrupt. It shows that evolutionists are living inside a cocoon of delusion. Their tribe is mutually congratulatory with each other … the blind leading the blind, so to speak.

It is amazing how some scientists will twist and warp their theories—forcing square pegs into round holes—as they attempt to stay accepted members of their tribal consensus. The longer that time passes, however, the more facts arise that confuse and challenge the unanimity of the evolution fraternity.

This continues. After more than a century has passed, scientists still doggedly search for the “missing links.” We can be reasonably sure that they will never find them.

All the biology and science textbooks I was prescribed during my undergraduate years were suffused with evolutionary bias, often presented as fact by the professors. I identified with the situation that the prophet Daniel faced. Like Daniel, I studied “pagan” theories and knowledge, yet excelled even though I did not endorse them as my own beliefs.

Instead, I covered the university campus with thousands of Jack Chick publications. These were small cartoon booklets that engagingly presented Christian messages (the Gospel, Creationism … etc.).

The perpetuation of evolution as fact is one of the greatest frauds of all time. As the saying goes (often attributed to Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

With such precedent, it would not be outrageous to consider that present consensus views on “climate change” could be equally wrong and fraudulent.

Mankind and Global Climate Crisis: Who Is to Blame?

Holding the view that mankind has not been the major cause of “global warming” does not mean that humans have not sullied the planet. For example, consider the likely environmental impact of nuclear bombs since the middle of the 20^th century. It is claimed that over 2,000 nuclear bombs have been detonated for testing and demonstration (not to mention the two bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945).

It would be surprising if these detonations had no detrimental impact upon the environment and human health. How and to what extent is still the subject of study. It would seem that the activities of mankind will have had an impact of some kind.

But to conclude that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are solely attributable to mankind, and that this is unusual and destructive, is not proven.

Let us consider the matter of rising carbon emissions. This has been the central plank upon which rest the initiatives of the “global warming fighters.” In their view, increased emissions directly cause rising temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere.

Indeed, carbon emissions (CO2, methane, and nitrogen oxide, for the most part) have increased markedly in the atmosphere in recent centuries. It is claimed that this rise coincides with the start of the Industrial Age (considered to be the year 1760). However, the data does not conclusively provide proof of such a relationship. The climate changes are not entirely manmade.

Are there any other facts that we can review on these questions? Yes, indeed. However, we must keep in mind that proof of their impact upon “climate change” may not be possible either.

The major debate concerns proof that rising CO2 levels cause global warming (or climate change in all its facets). As mentioned, the broad consensus among scientists is that rising CO2 in the atmosphere is directly linked to the earth’s rising atmospheric temperature.

This false assumption has led to the construction of “climate models” that are primarily dependent upon CO2 dynamics. These models (of which there are several) purport to be able to predict future CO2 levels, fine-tune policies to reduce global temperatures … etc. This is the fiercely defended “consensus view.”

But what of the naysayers? Do any have better and more accurate facts or theories? Yes! In the next part, we will explore some of the alternate theories of “consensus naysayers.”

***

Wilfred J. Hahn is a global economist/strategist. Formerly a top-ranked global analyst, research director for a major Wall Street investment bank, and head of Canada’s largest global investment operation, his writings focus on the endtime roles of money, economics and globalization. He has been quoted around the world and his writings reproduced in numerous other publications and languages. His 2002 book, The Endtime Money Snare: How to live free, accurately anticipated and prepared its readers for the Global Financial Crisis. A following book, Global Financial Apocalypse Prophesied: Preserving true riches in an age of deception and trouble, looks further into the prophetic future.

If you have questions or other perspectives, you can contact Wilfred at: staff@eternalvalue.com. Please note that for reasons of volume and investment securities regulation, he cannot give financial advice.