The public presentation of lying scenarios has then become an acceptable technique for drumming up large followings and fomenting repressive political change.  Public awareness is increasingly being focused on a supposed threat of destructive global “warming”. Models appearing to have scientific validity are continually making public, dire predictions of excessive global temperature increases due to the activities of man.  Yet, the purveyors of these models refuse to make public any acknowledgement that actual global temperatures continually fall far short of the predictions made in their previous sets of models. Destructive weather, which naturally follows fractal patterns2, is publicly attributed to global warming and the activities of man, when in fact it is due to neither.  

But what is most irritating, is that the keepers of the public trust (scientists, media, government officials) keep changing the language, with increasing innuendo.  At first, in the 1970’s, we were being warned of global cooling.  Then, when a warming trend became evident, they began to push global warming.  After a while, “global warming” meant man-made global warming.  In the early 2000’s, when it became clear that the warming trend was leveling out and never had been as steep as their models predicted, panic set in and they altered it to global “climate change”.  

Of course this continued to carry the man-made implication, but lost some momentum.  To rectify, they had already conjured up consequences, like melting glaciers and rising sea-level3; but this wasn’t enough.  Melting glaciers don’t kill whole populations; a rising sea-level does not inundate cities before coastal structures can be moved elsewhere.  So they shifted these “problems” to become indicators of environmental destruction.  

But polar bear populations were resilient, ski resorts had obtained snow making machines, and everybody knew that melting icebergs do not raise the sea level.  Therefore, many proxies for disastrous environmental impact were lost! Something else had to be done. A flurry of tenuous reports then came out purporting weather extremes to result from global warming.  These leveraged pain, suffering, and loss caused by the normal occurrence of such things as hurricanes and tornadoes into a misleading message that global warming is catastrophic and destructive.  

It also appears that a more persuasive international myth could be obtained by making the object of hatred more specific.  So the unfocused man-caused idea has now become passé, and a very pointed causal agent has emerged: the oil companies. This is reminiscent of the “two-minutes hate” in George Orwell’s dystopia, 1984; the Nazi’s hate for the Jews, tragically manifested in World War II (and now disturbingly resurfacing); and the socialist’s hate for the rich, espoused today by willfully ignorant media people.  

It is also worth noting that the adherents to global “climate change” have no hope in the restorative power of God or in His stable design of the earth.  They believe man is damaging the earth and this damage will reach a “tipping-point”, becoming irreversible if it is not stopped immediately. Therefore, “we” must act quickly with dictatorial international law4 to avert the looming crisis.  

To facilitate this process of convincing multitudes of that which is untrue, the brave new “climate change” has now become pure innuendo, with the following equivocated meaning.  This meaning, signified by double quotes, is what people have been trained to understand implicitly whenever the two words “climate change” are uttered:  

Catastrophic irrevocable planet-wide destruction caused by the oil companies.  

However, there is one component of all this change that has not changed:  the worldview of those holding to “climate change”. Their worldview predicts “climate change”; and if “climate change” were to be proven false, it would directly impact their hearts.  An environmentalist will therefore ardently defend “climate change” to protect his own heart; and this is a profound conflict of interest:  a worldview that sets itself up against disciplined interpretations of the scientific data.  

Now as was developed in the previous nine President’s Corner articles, the Scriptures support only a young-earth interpretation.  Yet, as shall be demonstrated in the next President’s Corner, “climate change” is supportable only by a belief that the earth is of extreme-antiquity.  Therefore, only a worldview that denies the Bible can support “climate change”. Hence, “climate change” is a grave deception that can flourish only in a culture that rejects the Biblical Testimony.  

______________________

¹Contrast with the attitude of Christ Jesus and the means He employed, in I Peter 2:22-23 and Philippians 2:5-11.  

²Fractal patterns are ubiquitous in nature, appearing over huge ranges of scale (from very small to very large).  

³Glaciers are currently retreating and sea level is currently rising.  But this differs little from centuries-long warming and cooling cycles that have been recorded in the past, with proxy temperature changes the same size as what we are seeing now.  These cycles are naturally occurring and undoubtedly superimposed on rebound from the Noahic Flood.  

⁴Shallow thinkers are pushing the idea that the only solution to a global problem requires the intervention of global governance, ultimately from the UN.  But they deliberately ignore the fact that the Almighty Creator is also the Ruler of the kings of the earth, and that He has thwarted every attempt by man to establish a global government, beginning with the tower of Babel; and He will also thwart the current attempt.