Climate Change

Many of you will be wondering what on earth an essay on climate change is doing on a Christian website.  The truth is that nothing is irrelevant to the Gospel message. Absolutely everything that happens on this planet has impact and meaning in the context of God’s eternal plan, and climate change, (a euphemism for ‘global warming’), is no exception.


I am by no means an ‘expert’ in meteorology, ecology or geology, but some things seem so obvious, you don’t need to be an expert. ‘Experts’ have been warning us for 40 years that we are on a path of self-destruction where the climate is concerned. Al Gore (who used to be the next president of the USA) recently made the greatest impact with his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Finally many are taking some notice and politicians realize they can no longer sweep the issue under the carpet.  Our rivers are drying up and our dams don’t hold water, because there’s no water to hold.  The climate is changing.  So we make token efforts, like swapping incandescent light bulbs for fluoros, which have already cost much more in green house gases during their manufacture than the incandescent bulbs will ever produce. 

Here are the “facts” available to all us laymen and women, in broad, rough terms:


  • Just over a hundred years ago there were 1.5 billion people on this globe. Today we are looking at 6.5 billion. The forecast puts the number at more than 8 billion in less than 30 years.
  • Globalisation is spreading the word that the way Westerners live is a much to be desired lifestyle. Four billion people in underdeveloped countries want to emulate us. The pollution that would be produced by putting all of them into a basic three bedroom house, (boasting an electricity supply, clean running water, plus a car with an internal combustion engine in the garage), would kill the planet way before 8 billion people was ever a consideration.
  • The Western economies are structured in such a way that a continual improvement in lifestyle is essential (‘economic growth’ they call it). Consumerism is the only thing that sustains their viability. If we all stopped spending, the economies would collapse.  So our governments, totally in the dark for answers, are struggling to find an acceptable compromise between maintaining the system and poisoning the planet. But there is no acceptable compromise. The only thing they seem to know is that too much spending will send interest rates through the roof. With a four-year elected term for most of them, that’s as far as they look or plan ahead.
  • Westerners are becoming increasingly lazy. Not only are we putting on excessive amounts of weight and struggling to remember which one is the remote control for the piece of technology we don’t want to get out of our armchairs to operate, but we no longer want to work for a living. More and more are we looking to get rich quick, be it by winning the lottery, gambling on the stock market, receiving an unexpected inheritance, picking an unusually profitable investment, or by finding a magic bullet that will bring some other windfall our way.   We are producing less and less, but want to be paid more. As a result, hard working, productive Asian countries are buying out our industry and taking the profits overseas. If the trend continues, eventually we will be totally dependent on them for even the most basic of survival needs.
  • Meanwhile, the polar icecaps are melting because the adopted lifestyle of 2 billion people is causing the planet to overheat.  Not only is this producing climate change in the form of dramatic and unprecedented storm activity, but the resultant new ocean currents are affecting sea ecology, killing everything in them, as well as getting those same dead oceans ready to flood the bulk of our chosen places of settlement. Even if we did happen to find a way to exploit a source of sustainable, renewable, non-polluting energy (like nuclear fusion, geo-thermal energy, solar, wind, wave or hydrogen power), the timeframe for implementation is so critical, the damage has for all intents and purposes already been done.  The sheer scale of what we are dealing with here is so daunting, most politicians prefer to stick their heads in the sand. It is claimed that the icecaps contain enough frozen water that, if they were to melt completely, sea level throughout the world would rise by 21 feet (over 6 metres).

The spiritual perspective on what’s happening to our precious blue planet is largely ignored or refuted.  Mankind, especially that part that has adopted the unsustainable lifestyle of the West, is in denial, arguing that God either doesn’t exist, or condones what we are doing to His creation.  It supports its conclusions with implausible theories on how we got to be here without His help. It promises solutions which are based on false premises. It places faith in the fallible intellect of its own greatest minds. And the devastating import of this misplaced faith may not be realized until it is much too late to do anything about it.

I’ve said this a few times, but it’s worth repeating: Jesus is said to be coming back to destroy those who destroy the earth:


"We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come, Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, and those who fear Your name, small and great, and should destroy those who destroy the earth." 
(Revelation 11:17-18)


And God gave us a message through Daniel regarding end times:

"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."(Daniel 12:4)

These warnings are ominous and eerily topical and to the point.  Mankind was given custody of God’s creation right at the beginning and has dreadfully abused that privilege for his own benefit.

There have been loads of opportunities to avoid the crisis we’re facing. And they have been thwarted by self-interest groups.  It’s all about money. And about that psychopathic monster we ourselves created: “the Corporation”. Oil companies want to make huge profits for their shareholders and executives, so they buy out any potential development of an alternative to oil.  And then they hide it.  Governments are in collusion, standing to make huge tax revenues by supporting the sale of oil. If it wasn’t so, we would all be driving around in small electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles right now. Australia has huge deposits of coal and uranium. It used to make its mark “on the sheep’s back”, but now it relies on export of mining products. Again we’re faced with a choice between the economy and the planet – do we export coal and uranium and maintain our lifestyle, or do we support clean, renewable forms of energy and be forced to make compromises?

The principle applies to a great line-up of products. Governments spend millions to discourage smoking, so why haven’t they simply banned the sale of cigarettes?  Do the math.  The cost to the health of the population due to tobacco addiction is enormous, but the tax revenue is greater.  The social cost of alcohol abuse is huge, but the tax revenue is greater.  Australian farmers are going broke because of cheap produce imports.  Many of these products are fertilized and contaminated by human sewage. But it is either too difficult or expensive to deal with the immediate problem. And the long-term implications will most likely be someone else’s headache.

The disposal of waste is becoming an ever increasing problem.  We could have changed our ways years ago.  And we now make an almost laughably miniscule effort by having recycling bins and buying reusable shopping bags, somehow easing our conscience. But the focus should be on manufacturing products that are readily recycled in the first place. It takes 50,000 tons of raw materials to produce a three-ton car (Future Focus, “Waste equals Food”, SBS 8/2/07). Huge volumes of green-house gases are discharged into the atmosphere during its manufacture.  And when it reaches its use-by-date, most of it ends up as landfill. It just takes a small shift in the way we think to make a three-ton car out of three tons of material, all of which could be reused at the end of its life.  There are many scientists investigating opportunities to change our entrenched attitudes towards manufacturing products, but they are meeting resistance at every turn.

There is much more dough in the status quo.

Are you convinced? Are you now a convert, ready to champion the cause to stop global warming?


In doing my research for this essay, I discovered there is an entirely opposite point of view, also strongly supported by scientific findings, which claims our beautiful planet is just doing its thing.  This point of view says the impact of Man occupying this world is so small, it is the height of arrogance to think he can do anything to change it. If the planet is warming, it will warm with or without him.  Global warming could just as easily start another ice age.  (If that seems like a contradiction in terms, I can’t help it.)  This point of view claims the environmentalist movement is motivated by political forces in the West trying to protect its unfair share of the wealth.  They desperately want to maintain their economic advantage over developing countries.  Michael Crichton, in his recent (2004) novel “State of Fear”, presents a very plausible argument against global warming. Whilst it is fiction in respect of the story line, it is based on an enormous amount of factual research.

Crichton expounds the idea that in any government system, leaders generally control the masses through a mechanism of fear. Without a fear factor, their control over us diminishes.  The fear factor makes them indispensable.

Since World War II, for more than 40 years that fear was Communism.  The Cold War. When the Iron Curtain came down and the threat of a Communist takeover dissolved with the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a new fear factor was needed.  They’ve tried numerous ideas since, including wars on many underdeveloped nations. There was Vietnam. There was Korea. Now there’s Iraq. (During a recent visit to the Canberra War Museum, I felt sick in the stomach at the way war is glorified to justify the deaths of so many of our young men; dead before they ever experienced enough of life to know why they were giving it up. I couldn’t stay in the place.) 

Then there was Y2K.  On the turn of the millennium, planes were going to fall from the sky and the entire economy was going to fail because computers wouldn’t be able to tell whether it was the year 2000 or 1900. I am told three trillion dollars was spent worldwide to address this non-existent problem, when all anybody had to do was adjust the clock forward on a couple of computers and see what happened when the new millennium ticked in early. It is so obvious now, it’s embarrassing.  The current fears are weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.  And the latest of all is global warming. Boy, are we in dire needed of being governed!  Y2K was evidence that the potential for mass delusion is alive and well, and there are plenty of people happy to exploit it and make a buck out of it. 

Here are the “facts” supporting the point of view that global warming is not real:


  • The earth’s atmosphere is primarily made up of oxygen and nitrogen.  The carbon dioxide component is currently only about 0.03% of the total. Even if we continued on our merry way, adding green house gases to our heart’s content, by the end of this century, even if it tripled, it is hardly likely to affect the climate.  And it is hardly likely to account for current weather phenomena. The earth is constantly moving its tectonic plates, constantly quaking somewhere, constantly developing huge storm patterns and bombarding the earth with lightning. Volcanoes spew out massive amounts of greenhouse gases on a daily basis and have been doing so for thousands of years.  Bush fires ravage the planet and belch out uncontrollable, unimaginable volumes of smoke. And overall there has not been a provable dramatic change in the worldwide weather patterns of the last millennium.  The only change has been in localized patterns and in the way they are reported in the media.
  • The planet has been warming slightly, naturally and spontaneously for thousands of years.
  • The polar ice caps are not ‘melting’, but are in a constant cycle of regeneration.  Sure, many glaciers are melting, but just as many are growing. Some studies actually show an increase in polar ice mass.  Pictures of huge slabs of ice crashing into the Arctic Ocean and shots of snow disappearing from mountain tops are just emotional turn-ons.
  • Many records regarding average temperature in any location are inaccurate, as the earlier ones used inferior equipment. Many of these records actually show the opposite, either a cooling or a static temperature over the last 200 odd years since records started being kept.  Environmentalists only produce charts showing the last 30 odd years, as they support their argument.  If they used 200 year charts, their argument would be demolished. Local increases in average temperature are a feature of localized land use, not of global warming.
  • A genuine trend in global warming should result in less storm activity, not more.
  • Predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not real data.

There is now a new documentary called: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, directed by Martin Durkin, which was shown on the ABC in July 2007.  I understand it can be viewed on the internet.  Then there was a debunker program debunking this debunker. Now one of the world’s foremost meteorologists, Dr. William Gray, has labeled Gore’s assertions as ‘ridiculous’ and the product of ‘people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works’ (Sun-Herald, October 14, 2007, page 43). He said: “The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures. It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out.” In the same paper, Miranda Devine (page 61) relates a recent British High Court finding that Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” promoted “partisan political views’ and contained several errors of fact, some of which arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of (Gore’s) political thesis.” Two giant graphs Gore uses, showing rises in carbon dioxide levels, were labeled ‘bogus’; claims that rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific Islanders were false; and claims of drowning polar bears was based on four bears that died in a storm.  And there were many more.

What on earth are we to do with these conflicting perspectives?  How is the layman supposed to reach a reasonable conclusion as to what is truth and what is prejudicial propaganda?  How much of what we read is information and how much disinformation?


Research itself is rarely unbiased.  There is no way any of us could go out there with our trusty thermometers and do our own unbiased survey. Those who fund research, be they Governments, drug manufacturers or special interest groups, all have expectations as to the outcome of the findings. When I was just starting in my career as a Management Analyst, I was told by the new head of the area I was reviewing what he wanted the conclusion of my report to be. I refused to surrender my objectivity.  When I sat on the board of a charitable Foundation raising funds for cancer research, I suggested all bone marrow transplant patients be given a general questionnaire, (to be completed voluntarily during their five weeks in a hospital isolation ward), in which they could surmise what they thought might have caused their leukemia.  I was told it was not on. The questionnaire should be worded with a specific thesis in mind, testing (say) whether exposure to high-tension transmission lines could cause leukemia.  That was the proper, scientific way of doing it!  (You can then fiddle the statistical results to prove whatever you want them to mean.)

Are we dealing with a real threat, caused through the selfish abuse of our environment by irresponsible humans? Or are we being hoodwinked once more by powerful people in privileged positions? And what is the agenda of those holding to the case against global warming? Are they all people with a financial stake in the oil industry?  Is it possible we are dealing with another Y2K episode? I’m afraid I can’t answer those questions for you. 
do know that what God created at the beginning was very good. Because He said it was (Genesis 1:31).  And I am convinced that what He created is not what it used to be.

•We are polluting our water ways. 
•We are facing a dramatic increase in previously rare diseases. 
•We are facing extinction of many species. 
•We are running out of drinking water. 
•We are tampering with His genetic designs. 
•We are running out of fossil fuels and conventional building materials.  
•We are wasteful. 
•We are confronted with a dreadful decline in moral values. 
•We in the West are the wealthiest of nations, wanting more than our fair share of the pie. 
•And we are polluting the air we breathe. 


Whether the globe is overheating as a result, I don’t know.  The great majority of scientists appear to endorse the concept.  But that doesn’t mean anything. They also believe in evolution. 


Assuming the threat is real, the options are many, but they all present hurdles.

There is enormous power in the wallet of the consumer. We could all refuse (as many have proposed) to buy anything other than those products which are made in our own country.  An insular approach would give us more control over our own activities and our own backyard. However, this would isolate us from the world economy and could backfire by sabotaging trade agreements. There would be a price. And it overlooks the big picture of a possible self-destructing scenario which would kill the planet regardless of whether we in one country did the right thing. Whether we like it or not, globalization is a fact of life.  And God created one human race, making all cultures our direct relatives.  I don’t think an isolation approach will work.  Nor is it right.  

We could make en-masse representations to local government representatives, insisting they must implement environmental policies which make this planet habitable in 50 years time; a place where our children’s children can play.  But representations without practical answers are not likely to bring results. The carbon tax imposed by the Gillard Government in 2011 is only going to be passed on to consumers, not stop global warming.

Let’s say Australia developed its geo-thermal capacity in South Australia and somehow managed to get the electricity generated to its every coastline, cleanly powering the entire country for the next 500 years.  Let’s say they abolished the internal combustion engine altogether and introduced electric vehicles that could be recharged at every parking space. Let’s say we adopted a policy that every new item sold in Australia must from now on be either totally biodegradable or readily recycled, and have a zero-emission production rating.  Let’s say we stopped pumping our human waste into the ocean and instead processed it into safe fertilizer and clean drinking water.  Let’s say we somehow harnessed the massive downpours of rain on the coast which keep missing the dam catchment-areas. These things are not unachievable, but they call for the will to do it. And they are great advances, whether global warming is fact or fiction.  It would be an example to the rest of the world.  

It would also make a lot of people very unhappy. Vested interests are everywhere, inside and outside the country.  They are not going to take this lying down.  Their wallets would be suffering anorexia.

There is much more dough in the status quo.


So in all this confusion, the average Christian stumbles along, wondering what is the ‘right’ thing to do. We ask ourselves questions like: “Should I drive a smaller car, or take up walking?” or “Shall I do without a meal tonight, so a person in Africa can eat?” “Is it right to buy that new TV, that people in Taiwan were paid 10 cents an hour to make?” or “Did I switch off all the lights before I went out to dinner?” “Where did I put my reusable shopping bags?” or “Is rinsing out the recyclable milk bottle a waste of water?”

I don’t have answers to these questions either (except I did switch off the lights and I didn’t rinse the milk bottle!).  The intricacies of our modern world are way too complicated for any of us laymen and women to even presume to understand.  Until I started this essay, I was convinced global warming was a proven fact.  Suddenly I am aware that I only had part of the relevant data on which to base my conclusions.  How much more information is out there that I will never be privy to, and which could very possibly change my stand again? To be truly certain of my stand, not only would I have to have a degree in every science known to man, but I would need to be able to discern the hidden motives behind every push to popularize a particular opinion.

So all I can reasonably do is, go back to the things of which I am certain. 

I look out in reverence at the great lights God placed in the firmament (Genesis 1:14-15), and see a sun 400 times as large as the moon, a light exactly 400 times as far away, the only reason a solar eclipse is possible.  Our planet is exactly the right distance from the light ruling the day, or else we would either freeze or boil.  I gaze up at the stars and see the miracle of infinity.  I look at the wonder of nature and the interdependence of every eco-cycle. I inhale a breath of still breathable air, and sigh at the unbelievably complex design that keeps it so. The atmosphere interacts constantly with the life it sustains, both protecting and feeding it.  I look at the astounding qualities of music.  I consider the mind-blowing, life-enriching wonder of the senses of touch and sight and hearing and smell and taste, and the miracle of life itself. Then I am reminded of the incredible arrogance called for, to claim this is all the product of lifeless chemicals interacting by chance.   The proof of Creation is in every minute strand of DNA, in every living thing around us.  DNA is information. One of the first rules of science is that information cannot create itself.  Information is invariably the product of intelligence.  And I am struck with awe that the only explanation is intelligent design! 

And then I cannot help but ask myself the question millions of others have asked before me: “Why?” What is the reason for us being here?  If a divine Creator placed us here, for what purpose did He make us? The answers are found in the Gospel message, encapsulated in 66 books that make up the Bible. God put us here because He desired an intimate relationship with someone outside of the Godhead.  He wants to spend eternity with those of us who want to spend eternity with Him.

He placed us in an environment created especially for us, an environment which itself was a testimony to His creative power, an environment which declared His sovereignty, so man would have no excuse to deny His existence:


“The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the peoples see His glory” (Psalms 97:6).

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”  (Romans 1:20)

He gave us dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:28).  And we have exploited that privilege to further selfish ends. Christians, more than any others, have a responsibility and accountability to the Creator Himself for the way in which we use His precious gift. Those who know the Truth inherently have a greater accountability assigned by Jesus Himself:

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin."  
(John 15:20)


Yes, we do need to do our bit to preserve the beauty of His creation.  We do need to switch off the lights when they are not needed.  We do need to drive less and walk more. We do need to think of others when we inadvertently, or out of habit, leave the tap running.  We do need to have a genuine concern for the underprivileged and those starving.  We do need to rein in our opulent lifestyle and become less materially focused.  We do need to share the wealth. And it can’t stop there.

But much more than abuse His gift, we have ignored His eternal purpose.

We have taken our eyes off Jesus.  He is coming back.  Only the Father knows when. But He is coming back. Much more important than climate change, is the issue of personal change.  And that personal change involves a change in our heart.

Is our heart for Him or for ourselves? Do we genuinely look forward to spending eternity in His holy presence? There is a cost to being a Christian.  That cost is the things we want and the things that boost our ego.  That cost is self.  Willingness to surrender that proves to Him we really do love Him with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.

Will we be ready for Him when He comes?


I live near the top of a hill in the very centre of the urban sprawl known as Sydney, some 23 kilometres from the Pacific Ocean (as the crow flies, although I am not aware of any crow that has actually made the journey in a non-stop effort). Is there a possibility that one day my little bit of real estate will become a waterfront?  Will I still be here if, or when, that happens? And if it happens, will life on earth still be a realistic scenario? Who knows?

Right now, I am not sure whether ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ and ‘green house effect’ are phrases made up to manipulate the masses through scare tactics, or real threats calling for immediate and radical corrective action.  I’m not sure whether we are dealing with impending disaster, or a Y2K look-alike.

However, we are polluting the earth.  There is no doubt.  We are destroying the environment we live in and are responsible for extensive damage to God’s creation. We desperately need to change our ways and those who believe in our Maker probably have an even greater responsibility than those who don’t. 

And as Christians, we have lost sight of the ‘big picture’ of the real Gospel message.

At one end of the spectrum we have evolutionists like Richard Dawkins going out of their way to make hours of television (“Root of all Evil -The God delusion”, Compass, ABC, 20/05/07) to try to convince us life has no meaning, there is no God, in fact all religion is bad news. We are all no more than advanced, evolved animals. Faith is ignorance, a denial of scientific findings, a totally irrational perspective on the evidence before us. But the hours of TV give only half the story, the half that makes his viewpoint look convincing.  The news brought to us by scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution, spontaneous generation of life in primordial soup, chance mutations leading to the incredible complexity of life, is that there is no hope for any of us.  There is no hope for something beautiful to look forward to after this life. There is also no solid reason other than selfishness for being good, caring or moral; no expectation for anything beyond this earth; no eternity or life past this materially focused existence; no accountability for your actions to a higher being. Dawkins says our moral ethics are based on genetic selection, which over millions of years recognised the advantages implicit in the principle: “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.”  

At the other end of the spectrum we have scriptures in the Bible telling us God created us from the dust of the earth, in six days, six thousand years ago.  There is meaning to existence and hope for the future. Christ died to save us, mostly from ourselves.  Lots of scientists support this view with alternate scientific evidence, but rarely, if ever, does this available evidence get presented in the church services we attend.  (Congratulations to the Creation-on-the-Web ministry, for trying to change that situation.)  Few Christians can defend their faith when attacked by people like Dawkins.    

In between, we have uncountable numbers of grey perspectives, also giving us only half the story in an attempt to persuade us their particular view is correct.  Most of these views are compromises between the two, trying to appeal to those of us who cannot live with either extreme. These views, also, are usually tainted by some hidden agenda, vested interest, or even personal hurt. 


As it turns out, this wasn’t really an essay on ‘climate change’ at all, even though when I started out that was my intention.  I still have no definitive answers on that issue. What is needed is indisputable scientific evidence proving average sea levels are definitely rising.  As it turns out, this essay might have been more accurately entitled: “Mass Delusion”.  And if it is possible that much of the time the masses operate under the influence of delusions created by powerful vested interests, I am forced to ask one of the most challenging questions of all: 
                                                    “Is my Christian faith a delusion?” 

In the end, people believe what they want to believe.  And they are all free to do so.  In the words of Kerry Packer, shortly before he died, “I have some good news and some bad news: the bad news is, there ain’t no heaven; the good news is, there ain’t no hell!”  If he’s right, I haven’t lost anything; but if he’s wrong, he’s in big trouble!   

Sorry, Kerry and Richard, but I believe you’ve both made a huge mistake. I am telling you there IS hope. Hope for the seven, soon to be nine, billion people occupying this planet.  That hope remains, whether the earth survives the onslaught of what we manage to dish out or not.  That hope stands firm, no matter how cruel and hateful we are towards each other; no matter how many others we slaughter in our ‘righteous’ wars, more often than not in the name of God; no matter how much pollution we produce in our pursuit of personal wealth and no matter how much damage we inflict on the environment.


“For whatever things were written before, were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

“… because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel” (Colossians 1:5)
“To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” (Colossians 1:27) 

“… in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began” (Titus 1:2)
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a livinghope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)


Yes, I believe! I believe there is a God!  I believe there is a heaven!  I believe there is life after death! I believe Christ died to save us!  I believe He rose again to seal that victory!  And I believe He is coming again! After all my study, viewing and research, I don’t for a second consider it to be an irrelevant, uneducated, unreasoning, irrational or unfounded belief, born in either a futile optimism or desperate need to cling to life, the way evolutionary scientists would argue. And it is neither a self- delusion nor a mass delusion.  WHY?  I assessed all the evidence objectively, and chose the option that made the most sense. I then had my decision affirmed in a wonderful, personal relationship with my Lord, just as He promised.

In the end, it is not about who presents the most convincing argument, or who weaves together their words most skillfully, or who is most sincere in their convictions. It is about whose side you are on. In this case, it is not a choice between who is right or wrong regarding the issue of human impact on the climate.  It is a choice between being on God’s side or the atheist’s side.

God tells us THERE IS HOPE for all of us, even the evolutionists.  The evidence is overwhelming, if only you are prepared to open your eyes.  

But the evidence is even more convincing, if only you are prepared to open your heart.