Point of View Outlook February 2021

Restoring CHRIST in the CULTURE

OUTLOOK m

a

g

a

z

i

n

e

VOL 17 • FEB 2021

The Truth About

C L I M AT E C H A N G E

3 Discounting the Critics Let’s look at some of the tactics used to debate the issue of climate change. The alarmists often try to win the debate merely by discounting any critics and...

4 Climate Change: Politics and Delusions This year we will see a greater push for executive action and congressional legislation to address the issue of climate change. A CNN poll, for example, found that 96 percent of Democrats...

8 A Crisis Too Big to Waste As Christians, we are called to steward the world. This includes things like recycling, being mindful of our consumption, and handling waste well. Decreasing...

10 Fear for the Future: Understanding Young Adults’ Views on Climate Change Climate change is one of the major dividing issues of our time. According to one narrative, the planet is literally on the brink of...

Outlook Magazine • February 2021

3

DISCOUNTING THE CRITICS

Discounting the Critics Kerby Anderson

S

Let’s look at some of the tactics used to debate the issue of climate change. The alarmists often try to win the debate merely by discounting any critics and calling them names. Meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer wrote about this. Alarmists claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a “climate change denier.” This has a sound very much like “holocaust denier.” Spencer says this is a “straw man argument” where you argue against something your opponent never claims.

pencer says he “cannot think of a single credentialed, published skeptical climate scientist who doesn’t believe in the existence of climate change.” This includes Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and others who have been labeled “climate change deniers.” You can even find a YouTube video where Lord Monckton asks a room full of these scientists if any of them believe what their critics say they believe. His interaction with them shows that this

is a “straw man argument.”

Sometimes the discussion is framed as a debate between those who believe in science (climate change) and others who are anti-science (the deniers). But the debate is really about percentages. Consider people who are labeled “climate change deniers.” Even these people believe the climate changed in the past (we’ve had an ice age, a medieval warming period). They just don’t believe that human activity is the major driver for climate change. But they will

usually admit that some small percentage of human activity might be influential.

On the other side are activists who are deeply concerned about climate change. But I doubt any of them believe that human activity is responsible for 100 percent of the change in climate. We have had variations in the climate long before the industrial revolution. So really the debate is between percentages. Some believe the percentage is low, others believe it is higher.

4

CLIMATE CHANGE: POLITICS AND DELUSIONS

Outlook Magazine • February 2021

Kerby Anderson

Climate Change: Politics and Delusions

This year we will see a greater push for executive action and congressional legislation to address the issue of climate change. A CNN poll, for example, found that 96 percent of Democrats said it was important that presidential and congressional candidates support “taking aggressive action to slow the effect of climate change.” That is why we will see a push for action, especially from Democrats in Congress and in the Executive Branch.

5

Climate action... but at what cost?

New York, New York, 23 September 2019.

World leaders and delegates gather at the United Nations headquarters for a summit to address climate change. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

But there is another poll that reminds us that while millions of Americans may want action on climate change, they don’t want to pay much for it. A poll by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago asked how much they would be willing to pay to fight climate change.

A majority (57%) said at least a dollar a month. Put another way, an aggressive push for climate change policies has the potential to backfire once Americans

“The Green New Deal, spearheaded by NY congresswoman Alexandria OcasioCortez, will cost America trillions of dollars, but how will it be paid for? A troubling plan calls for the government to print more money to pay for the new spending.”

— The Institute for Energy Research

begin to count the cost.

about the news sources you consume.

Climate Change Treaty

Here’s another question for you.

What country leads the world in total CO2 emissions? If you guessed the United States, once again you would be wrong. China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, and India is the third-largest emitter.

We will hear from politicians and the media that the US must ratify international treaties concerning climate change in order to save the planet. Critics point to the fact that the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol, and that President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accords.

They argue that we will never reduce the amount of CO2 emissions unless we participate in those treaties.

Here’s a question. What country has been leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions? Germany? France? Japan? No, the country reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country is the United States of America. Your ability or inability to provide the right answer to that question probably says quite a bit

These statistics show the problem of trying to curb the United States when we don’t have the ability to curb other nations. For every ton of reduced CO2 emission in the US, China and India produce nearly 10 more tons. In other words, they cancel out any reduction by the US by ten times.

We are told that the solution to climate change is the Green New Deal. The legislation would force the US to reduce CO2 emissions to the point that the

6

country might be carbon neutral. That is not possible. But even if it was possible, the climate sensitivity models predict it would only affect the world temperature by about 0.137 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Even if all the countries adopted a similar policy, it would only cool the earth by about 0.278 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

One of the people who has been counting the economic cost of implementing climate change legislation is Bjorn Lomborg (who used to be a Greenpeace activist). He reminds us that the solution put forward by a very vocal minority at most environmental conferences is “We must destroy capitalism.” He also reminds us of the significant progress that has been made because of free markets. Life expectancy has doubled, and billions of people have risen out of poverty.

Bjorn Lomborg catalogs the various studies that have been done to estimate the costs of the policies being proposed in the climate change conferences.

The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum estimates that trying to hit some of the

carbon reduction targets will reduce GDP by more than $150 billion annually.

Estimates for the impact on the European Union are even more significant.

Mexico has put in place some of the strongest climate legislation of any developing country. Peer-reviewed literature suggests the cost would be on the order of $80 billion. China has promised to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Using data from the Asia Modeling Exercise, the cost could be at least $200 billion a year.

There is good reason to believe that many of the promises by these countries won’t be kept. But even if they do spend this money and lower their GDP, what will be the impact? Bjorn Lomborg estimates all of this money would merely change the world temperature by less than a degree by the end of this century.

Possible Benefits

Given the fact that the planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age centuries ago, there may actually be some benefits. Professor Daniel Botkin wrote about this a few years ago in the Wall Street Journal. I was surprised to

see it because Professor Botkin was my faculty advisor when I was in graduate school at Yale University. He has been an environmental professor at Yale and later at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

He believed that, “contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.” For example, he disputed the United Nations report on climate change that predicted that a large percentage of plant and animal species will go extinct due to climate change. He pointed to the fact that there have been major changes in climate in the past that did not generate such high numbers of extinctions.

He also disputed the idea that tropical diseases are going to spread.

He pointed to papers that show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution and frequency of these diseases.

Dr. William M. Briggs reacted to a study published by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA unveiled

“Contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.”

Professor Daniel Botkin, Yale University

7

He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. In the second book, he argues that global warming may be a concern, but the programs put forth would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, they should not be implemented.

He pulled together what has been called the Copenhagen Consensus.

The meeting included Nobel laureate economists who evaluated the costs and benefits of different solutions to world problems.

Bjorn Lomborg, who brought economists and leaders together at the Copenhagen Consensus, found many programs where the cost/benefit ratio was excellent. They also found that the proposed programs to deal with climate change have a terrible negative ratio. The last time they met, the economists and leaders placed these climate change programs at the very bottom of their list.

an online tool that is supposed to warn local officials about the danger of climate change to each of the eight regions of the United States.

These dire warnings were too much for him, so he put together a few facts that put these warnings in context. He agrees that the climate has changed since 1980. Corn production in Michigan back then was about 7.5 billion bushels.

By 2015, it has increased to 14 billion bushels. He then humorously notes that the “EPA warns that climate change in corn-growing Michigan could exacerbate the risk of increased production. Farmers might run out of bushels if the correlation persists.”

The EPA study also warned of the impact of climate change in Iowa. Once again, Briggs found that there have been bumper crops of corn, soybean, and

other foodstuffs. “This is causing prices for food to drop. Climate change is thus bad news for those wanting higher prices.” As you can see, he was having some fun at the expense of the EPA report and concluded by saying he could probably do this for every state in the union. We don’t seem headed for a climate-induced Armageddon.

The Right Priorities

Wise stewardship of the planet requires us to place climate change policies in the right priority compared to other threats and problems. We do not have enough money or manpower to solve every problem in the world. It, therefore, makes sense to rank the cost-benefit of these problems so we can make the greatest positive impact. Many years ago, Bjorn Lomborg brought together economists and leaders to calculate those costs.

They found that just $60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80 percent of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) would be $1 billion.

That means doing $17 worth of good for every dollar spent.

They have found other ratios that were equally promising. For example, spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would prevent one million deaths. The annual benefit would be $30 billion. This is a $30 return on every dollar.

The economists and leaders at the Copenhagen Consensus found many programs where the cost/benefit ratio was excellent. They also found that the proposed programs to deal with climate change have a terrible negative ratio.

The last time they met, the economists and leaders placed these climate change programs at the very bottom of their list.

These are just a few facts to keep in mind when you hear politicians warn us of the dangers of climate change.

The draconian policies they propose will cripple our economy and have very little impact on our planet’s climate.

8

A CRISIS TOO BIG TO WASTE

Outlook Magazine • February 2021

A Crisis Too Big to Waste Ivy Nichols

As Christians, we are called to steward the world. This includes things like recycling, being mindful of our consumption, and handling waste well. Decreasing pollutants, finding cost-effective renewable resources, and working towards materials that are more sustainable are noble causes. There are many ways to work toward these goals.

However, it is an understatement to say that the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Agreement are not practically feasible, and would increase poverty, cause job loss, and make most items – the majority of which require energy to make – more expensive. If every country followed these unenforceable treaties perfectly, the temperature would be reduced by less than half a degree by 2100.

The earth’s temperature does undeniably fluctuate. From AD 950 to 1250, the earth went through a Medieval Warm Period, during which time the temperatures were about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are today.

According to D.J. Easterbook, in Evidence Based Climate Science, “The effects of the warm period were particularly evident in Europe, where grain crops flourished, alpine tree lines rose, many new cities arose, and the population more than doubled. The Vikings took advantage of the climatic amelioration to colonize southern Greenland in 985 AD, when milder climates allowed favorable open-ocean conditions for navigation and fishing.” Easterbrook explains that in Greenland, 95 houses, a church, and an

estate have been excavated. Fascinatingly, he says most are now under permafrost.

Following the Medieval Warm Period was a time known as the Little Ice Age, from around AD 1250 to 1870, during which time the average temperature dropped about 7 degrees Fahrenheit in around 20 years. Easterbrook writes, “The colder climate that ensued for several centuries was devastating. Temperatures of the cold winters and cool, rainy summers were too low for growing of cereal crops, resulting in widespread famine and disease. When temperatures declined during the 30-year cool period from the late 1940s to 1977, climatologists and meteorologists predicted a return to a new Little Ice Age.”

In 1970, an environmentalist named Nigel Calder said that “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” Temperatures began to rise a little again, and the fears of an ice age melted away and gave rise to a fiery passion about “global warming.”

This concern, when the warming trend “paused,” morphed again – and gave us “climate change.”

In his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore predicted that the oceans would rise 20 feet in the near future. However, in the last 130 years, the sea level has risen only 8 inches. He also projected the idea that the polar bear population was in certain decline.

Interestingly, as of 2013, there were still

20,000-25,000 polar bears; the same number as in 2001, according to the Polar Bear Specialist Group.

Another concern we often hear is that the sea ice is melting. In his book Fake Science, Austin Ruse said that we have only been able to measure the ice at the North and South Poles since 1979. At the time, there were 22 million square kilometers of ice. That has shrunk to 21 million square kilometers. However, he also says that between 1979 and 2015, “there were periods when the area of ice went both above and below these numbers.”

The earth’s temperature, weather, and environmental conditions do fluctuate. Any scientist or historian can tell you that – and most of it has nothing to do with humans. The amount of impact humans have on the current conditions is not settled. While this does not absolve us

9

Screencapture, CNN Town Hall, Sep 4, 2019

from the responsibility to steward nature and take care of this beautiful world God has given us, it can free us from unreasonable fear.

Beginning in the late 1960s, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich put out dire predictions about major food shortages in the US. He predicted that ‘hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death’ in the 1970s. According to his forecast, 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989.

He had even gloomier predictions for England, stating, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

These are only a few of the environmental doomsday predictions that have caused people to panic in the last 50 years. None of them have been even close to coming true. Such dramatic

predictions cause people to lose faith in the so-called experts who seem to continually sound the alarm about one thing or another, and overshadow actual problems that could have practical solutions.

A few months ago, Joe Biden blamed both drought and flooding in the Midwest on climate change, although both are unsettled whether they are increasing or decreasing as patterns. He also blamed the California wildfires and Hurricane Laura on climate change. According to Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and author, there have been more storms in the Atlantic, but there is no worldwide trend in tropical cyclones.

Since past predictions have been incorrect, it casts doubt on current and future dramatic predictions. We should take all of them with a grain of salt, use discernment, and research to find out if

they are true, rather than jumping on the panic bandwagon.

Is there a motivation behind this apparent fearmongering? For some people, fear comes from a sense of not being in control. This especially applies to people who do not realize there is a good God who loves us and is working things according to His plan.

There is also the political realization that a safe, prosperous, and responsible people have little need to be controlled.

As Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff said, one should not let a crisis go to waste. A real or imagined crisis is an exceptional opportunity to gather terrified people together, come in as the hero with a solution, and take control. Perhaps the factor that threatens to end the world as we know it is not climate change, but power-hungry politicians.

10

FEAR FOR THE FUTURE

Outlook Magazine • February 2021

Fear for the Future: Understanding Young Adults’ Views on Climate Change Liberty McArtor

Climate change is one of the major dividing issues of our time. According to one narrative, the planet is literally on the brink of apocalypse. According to another narrative, the idea of manmade climate change is a joke.

Adherents to these two narratives fall along ideological lines. Pew Research Center found in 2020 that 78 percent of Democrats believe dealing with climate change should be a top priority. Only 21 percent of Republicans agree.

But millennials (born between 1981 and 1996, according to Pew) and members of Generation Z (born in 1997 and after) are unique. Climate change is a big concern among these generations. What’s more, it’s a concern that spans the ideological spectrum among young adults.

In order to forge a reasonable path forward in environmental policy, the concerns of young adults must be taken into account. Not so that social and political solutions may bend to the opinions of one or two generations. But millennials and Gen Z are the largest living generations today.

Without their cooperation, no effort to refute hysteria about climate change will be successful.

The Number 1 Issue

A 2019 survey from YPulse, a leading youth research center, found

that for the first time, both millennials and Gen Z cited climate change as the biggest problem facing their generations. (The survey included responses from people ages 13 to 36.) According to YPulse, “Fifty-one percent of 13-17-year-olds and 46% of 18-36-yearolds agree with the statement, ‘Something catastrophic will happen in the next 5 years.’”

In recent years, influential millennials and Gen Zers have become increasingly vocal about climate change. In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Also in 2019, Prince Harry announced he and wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, would have no more than two children out of concern for the planet. “What we need to remind everybody is: these are things that are happening now,” he told environmental activist Jane Goodall in an interview for British Vogue. “We are the frog in the water and it’s already been brought to the boil. Which is terrifying.”

Of course, there is Greta Thunberg, the 18-year-old Swedish activist who has inspired worldwide youth activism on the issue of climate change.

Thunberg rose to global fame in 2018 and 2019 for speeches to the United Nations Climate Change Conference and the UN Climate Action Summit.

She was named Time’s 2019 Person of

the Year and has been nominated for two Nobel Peace Prizes.

These are just a few examples of notable young adults addressing climate change. But they are products of their time, not catalysts of a movement. Millennials and members of Gen Z grew up with warnings about climate change; it’s no surprise that it’s now one of their top concerns.

A Concern With Consequences

It’s not an abstract concern, either, but is actually impacting young adults’ major life choices. Perhaps not all of today’s teens are willing to sail across the Atlantic Ocean to avoid flying in an airplane, like Thunberg did on her way to the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019. But many are changing their

11

other woman said fears about climate change inspired her to have a second child. “If my daughter has to face the end of the world as we know it, I want her to have her brother there.”

Not Just the “Woke”

It may be tempting to think such desperate fears about climate change are limited to “woke,” progressive youth. But the research says otherwise.

In 2020, Pew Research revealed that on climate change, young Republicans differ from their GOP parents and grandparents. According to Pew:

Climate change environmental teen activist Greta Thunberg speaks during a climate strike rally in Iowa City, Iowa, Oct. 4, 2019. Credit: Daniel Acker/Reuters

consumer habits in order to decrease their carbon footprint.

What’s troubling is that changes in behavior are extending to decisions about reproduction. Significant research indicates that in several developed nations, including the United States, fertility rates are falling to dangerous lows. There are a lot of complex reasons for this, including economic factors that make it hard for many young adults to gain their financial footing, and trouble finding a lifelong partner in today’s dating scene.

But other young adults are forgoing procreation altogether — because of climate change.

Little reliable research exists on the true impact climate change is having

on reproductive decisions, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it’s a relevant factor. According to a 2020 Morning Consult poll, 11 percent of childless adults say climate change is a major reason they don’t have children, and 15 percent say it’s a minor reason.

Among childless millennials, 13 percent say it’s a major reason and 21 percent say it’s a minor reason. Among childless members of Gen Z, it’s 17 percent and 21 percent.

In 2018, a New York Times article explored the apprehensions many young adults feel about having children amid what they believe is an environmental crisis. One woman told the Times, “I don’t want to give birth to a kid wondering if it’s going to live in some kind of ‘Mad Max’ dystopia.” An-

Millennial and Gen Z Republicans — those currently ages 18 to 39 — are more likely than their GOP elders to think humans have a large role in climate change, that the federal government is doing too little on climate and that the U.S. should focus on developing alternative energy sources.

A similar pattern likely exists among evangelicals. One example is the group Young Evangelicals for Climate Action. The group’s spokesperson, Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, wrote for Grist in 2020, “As a 2014 Pew survey found, even though most young evangelicals still consider themselves conservative, a majority of them favor stricter environmental laws.”

While some young Christians may buy into leftwing hysteria about the environment, others are pushing back, even as they advocate for better care of the planet.

Gracy Olmstead, a conservative millennial writer and alumna of my own alma mater, Patrick Henry College, responded to concerns about childbearing amid climate change in 2019.

She writes:

12

OUTLOOK m

a

g

a

z

i

n

e

Restoring CHRIST in the CULTURE

VOL 17 • FEB 2021 President / Publisher

Warren Kelley Contributing Writers

Kerby Anderson Ivy Nichols Liberty McArtor

Friday 27 September 2019 - Arriving in Botswana’s Chobe River on day four of his royal trip to Africa, Prince Harry gave an impassioned speech on climate change in which he described planet Earth as being in a “state of emergency” and encouraged people to join the fight. www.Independent.co.uk

I have made the choice to procreate … even though I am concerned about climate change. And it’s important to argue for children and their parents and for the essential role they can both play in this urgent work of planetwide stewardship going forward.

Elizabeth Bruenig, another millennial columnist and a Catholic, argued in The Washington Post in 2018: It also appears to me that a certain disrespect for human life is how we arrived in the climactic fix we’re in now. … Children are a clear statement of hope, a demand that we claim accountability for the future.

They are a rejection of cavalier disregard for the planet we share.

Olmstead and Bruenig show that it is possible to be concerned about climate change while still championing

OUTLOOK is published by Point of View Ministries (the parent company of Point of View Radio Talk Show), a non-profit ministry recognized for tax-deductible giving by the IRS.

a biblical view of the value of human life, family, and stewardship.

Copyright © 2020 Point of View Ministries.

All rights reserved.

Efforts to reach millennials and Gen Z with the truth about climate change will need to be measured. Any attempt to completely dismiss concerns about the environment will fall on deaf ears, considering the magnitude of this issue for young adults — including those in the church and those who lean to the right politically.

OUTLOOK is a monthly publication

But there is a way. Record numbers of young adults currently struggle with depression and anxiety. They are desperate for hope. Research also shows that millennials and Gen Z are also motivated by causes they care about.

Because of this, young adults will likely be open to messages that combine hope for the future with strategies for reasonable, responsible, biblical stewardship of the earth we’ve been given.

produced for Point of View’s TruthTeam.

TruthTeam members help underwrite the Point of View Radio Talk Show through their commitment to give regularly to the ministry. Point of View Radio Talk Show has helped to shape the worldview of an entire generation of Americans. The broadcast equips listeners with the tools to take our biblical values into the culture and apply them to every area of life. For more information about Point of View or to become a TruthTeam member, go to pointofview.net or call (800) 227-1444.

For stations and broadcast times in your area, please visit us online at pointofview.net or call (800) 2271444. You can listen to the Point of View Radio Talk Show online at pointofview.net, through the Point of View Radio app, through Amazon Echo, and as a podcast from our website or iTunes.

You can watch a video of the broadcast at pointofview.net, Point of View’s Facebook page, Vimeo, YouTube, Roku, or Apple TV.