climatic alarmism

 By Jessica Jaworski and Avery Foley

January 24, 2023

Dead polar bears rising sea levels Huge climate refugee camps are filled with families who have been uprooted and are hungry. If we don't take action now (it could even be too late! ), we will face these catastrophes and many more terrifying events in the future. "There's no planet B," after all. These issues are regularly hammered home by climate change alarmists in an effort to spread panic and motivate people to take action. But should we share in the fear?

In a recent post, we looked at four biblical arguments for why we shouldn't be alarmed about climate change. But is this a case of "established science" where the facts leaves us with no choice but to panic? Well, not quite yet. The situation is more complicated than dramatic media assertions would have us think, as is always the case.

Here are the top five scientific arguments for why we should resist the claims of climate alarmism.

1.  Fossil fuels help countries escape poverty. Fossil fuels offer affordable, dependable energy. However, governments all around the world back costly climate measures that cut back on the usage of fossil fuels. Promises of "net zero carbon emissions by 2050" may sound like a motivating goal, but what is seldom acknowledged is how these policies would affect areas who are struggling with poverty.

Oil and other resources required for energy generation are imported by many nations. As a result, there is dependent on other countries and shifting import prices. Consumer goods and utility costs rise together with the cost of energy. Since the poor spend a bigger percentage of their income on home goods and have higher utility costs than wealthier people, this directly affects them. If nations aren't generating these resources on their own, importing them also implies fewer jobs, which slows down economic growth even further. Currently, the US imports over 72% of its crude oil from other countries. 

Although the US may have environmental protection for fossil fuel extraction on US land, many other countries do not. By obtaining and transporting fossil fuels from other nations with an out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality, some US energy companies may claim to be decreasing their carbon emissions because they are boosting the usage of "green energy," but they are really raising world emissions.

The economy of a country benefits when that country is able to create its own energy. Instead of advocating for policies that perpetuate economic stagnation out of concern for potential fossil fuel emissions, if climate alarmists are truly concerned about how environmental factors negatively affect people, they should continually offer incentives to assist underdeveloped countries in gaining access to clean drinking water and energy to heat their homes.

Even under the worst-case climate change scenarios, according to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change, the poorest countries in the world today would be wealthier by the end of this century than the richest (assuming we allow them to continue to develop, which means they need access to inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels). 

Realistically, humans can flourish in any climate if they and their country have the economic wherewithal to do so, but they can't exist well in a paradise on $1 per day, even if the predictions for man-made climate change are accurate (more on that below). What then poses a larger threat? poverty or climate change?

2. The better is warmer! All kinds of life flourished in the past when the world was substantially warmer and its CO2 levels were greater, according to geologic evidence and proxy data. Of course, this was before the worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, which drastically altered the planet's geology and temperature. However, there is also evidence to imply that some areas of the world were warmer than they are now. In reality, according to historical records, there have been multiple warm times, including the mediaeval warm period (MWP), which lasted from AD 300 to 1900, and during which inhabitants in Greenland, which is now covered in ice, were able to cultivate crops.

Extended growing seasons are possible with warmer temperatures, which enables higher agricultural output. The "small ice age" that took place around 1400, just after the MWP, is proof that colder temperatures may severely hinder agricultural productivity. The Thames River in London froze over during the "little ice age," and a large portion of Britain endured food shortages.

3. Bad choices are influenced by panic. As Christians, we recognise that God is in charge of his creation and that we must use judgement. We should exercise caution and question why as soon as a government tries to compel or persuade us to adopt certain climate measures. After all, some of these shifts pose a danger to fundamentally alter the political and economic landscapes, which would have far-reaching effects (and put much more power in the hands of the government, which, historically, often has a poor outcome).

Take the Paris Climate Agreement as an illustration of a poor judgement brought on by panic. By the middle of the twenty-first century, the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA), a 196-nation international pact with legal force, aims to bring CO2 emissions and global warming to 2°C below pre-industrial levels. Regarding the execution of this agreement, there are two pertinent figures to take into account. The first is the amount of warming that can be stopped by the year 2100, and the second is the cost to the world economy. If the climate agreement's forecasts are accurate, complete compliance would only result in a 0.17°C decrease in the world average temperature by 2100. Realistically, such a little quantity has no effect whatsoever on the environment or people's welfare. Now, supporters estimate that the PCA will cost between $1 trillion and $2 trillion year between 2030 and the year 2100 ($70-140 trillion in total). This translates to a price of $23.3–46.6 trillion for 1/10°F reduction in global warming. The advantages do not outweigh the expenses!

Or how about the Green New Deal proposal? Several US Representatives have introduced the Green New Deal (GND), a legislative resolution to tackle climate change. The American Enterprise Institute calculated that the cost of only the GND components (retrofitting buildings, converting to wind and solar energy, etc.) that are directly tied to lowering CO2 emissions will cost $490 billion yearly. 

However, that would not include all expenses associated with putting the GND into effect because it is unlikely that it would pass Congress on its own. Instead, it will require a coalition of backing from other organisations with their own goals (all of which cost more money). The anticipated cost of meeting these probable needs would be $9 trillion each year, or close to half of the US economy's yearly production ($20–22 trillion).

And would it function? No, the change in temperature would be very unnoticeable and have no beneficial effects on ecosystems or human well-being.

4. The models are erroneous! Models that predict future warming frequently include wide temperature ranges. Computer-generated climate models are used by climate policymakers, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to guide their decisions about climate change. The IPCC estimates climate sensitivity, or how much the average global atmospheric surface temperature will increase in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, with high confidence at 1.5-4.5°C or 2.7-8.1°F. This estimate is based on computer-generated models. Empirical evidence, however, demonstrates that CO2-caused warming is either significantly below or just over the model predictions.  These models often forecast two to three times more than what has actually been seen throughout the relevant timeframe.

38 computer-generated models were compared to real-world observational data between 1979 and 2014 in the study, and it was found that all 38 models anticipated higher warming than what was actually seen.

Of again, neither do we know that CO2 alone is to blame for the observed warming. The world has already warmed for reasons other than CO2 produced by humans (for example, the previously mentioned mediaeval warming period that occurred prior to the industrial revolution when global temperatures warmed enough that farming was possible in Greenland).

There is no reasonable foundation for projections about the future temperature or for policy responses to such predictions since the climate models that policy makers employ tend to exaggerate overall warming trends.

5. Greener things grow in warmer climates. The presence of atmospheric CO2 is essential for life and has a number of positive ecological effects, including higher plant output. 13 Plant growth is accelerated when atmospheric CO2 concentration rises. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations have a fertilising impact that benefits both humans and other species by increasing food production.

Climate policymakers frequently highlight the detrimental effects a doubling of atmospheric concentrations might have on life on Earth when addressing climate sensitivity. However, studies have shown that increasing the CO2 concentration can boost plant growth productivity. Additionally, higher CO2 levels improve plant water retention, lower stress on plant health, and boost agricultural output. Greater food is produced as a result, resulting in more food for both plants and everything that eats plants. For us, this translates to more plentiful and consequently less expensive food.

According to a comprehensive analysis of the research published in 2012 on the CO2 enhancement impact on crops, the $3.2 trillion increase in world agricultural output over a 50-year period from 1961 to 2011 may be attributed to the CO2 that humans have supplied to the atmosphere. By 2050, this rise in CO2 and agricultural yields would result in an additional $9.8 trillion in food being produced.

We don't have to succumb to political intimidation, climate alarmists, or dramatic media assertions about climate change. The facts that supports climate policy should be thoroughly analysed, and we should never forget that God is in complete charge of his creation. As we carry out God's command to "have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the skies and over every living creature that moves on the ground," may we be found loyal to carefully manage God's creation in a way that brings glory to him (Genesis 1:28).

Under the terms of a Creative Commons licence, this article has been taken from answersingenesis. Go here to read the original article.