Dave Wernli
Nov 5 · 4 min read

Janis, thank you for your kind response and all the claps!

I have not researched climate change, but there are a few things that really bother me about it. (I plan to look into it more fully in 2020.) I need to do my research, there may be something to it at some level, but I think I smell a rat. Here are my concerns:

(1) I have too long a memory. I remember all the films they showed us in grade school in the ’70s about the impeding second ice age. About how global temperatures were cooling every year, and an second ice age was about to destroy us all. As a child, even at 12, I’d thought it was poppy-cock because I’d read the Bible and I knew that’s not how the world ends. One of their main “indisputable” data points was how the ice caps were expanding every year.

But now the same climate “science” industry that warned of a catastrophic second ice age because of global cooling in the ’70s is now warning of catastrophic climate change effects because of global warming, only a few decades later. That gives them a huge credibility problem in my mind. Especially since one of their main “indisputable” data points is how the ice caps are melting every year, the exact opposite of what they said only a few decades ago.

(2) East Anglia University was caught red-handed dorking the data. EAU is the primary data collector for climate change. Some of the researchers were caught red-handed deleting global cooling cycles. Supposedly they were cleared by an independent investigation.

But that “independent investigation” was performed by officials from EAU who had multiple conflicts-of-interests (COIs):

( A ) A COI around protecting the academic reputation of their university.

( B ) A finanical COI since EAU’s existence depends on grants for studying climate change.

( C ) An intellectual COI since they all believed in global warming to start with.

Their conclusion was that dorking the data didn’t matter because we all know that global warming is happening, that the dorked data wouldn’t change that conclusion. Really? That makes no logical sense — you would never take the huge possibly career-ending risk of dorking data if the true data supported your desired conclusion! EAU’s researchers would never have risked it if the true data supported global warming. The fact that they risked dorking data means they didn’t believe the true data supported their desired conclusion.

This seems like a no-brainer to me, and should’ve been the death of global warming right there (although after that they did change the name to “climate change”), expect for number (3) below:

(3) The politics of it. All proposed solutions involve a huge power grab by governments. For example, AOC’s Green New Deal (GND) would ban air-travel, yet she frequently flys from DC back to NY. When confronted on her hypocrisy, her response was “Well, some people will have to fly,” meaning government elites. She can fly. But not you or I. It strikes me that a pre-industrialized population (which is where the GND would take us), would be much easier for an industrialized socialist government to control.

How do we know the artifacts you mentioned are even happening? Because the liberal media, who clearly have a liberal socialist agenda, keep telling us. But what if the emperor has no clothes?

(4) The spiritual aspect. I believe evolution was put in place to explain away what God did at the beginning of time. Could it be that climate change is being pre-positioned to explain away what God’s going to do at the end of time? The first several end-time plagues in Revelation are environmental. For example, when a third of the sea life in the oceans die, what do you think the headline will be?

Headline A: “Bible prophesy comes true! We as a planet need to repent now!”

or

Headline B: “Climate change kills a third of marine life! Governments must take action now!”

Again, I haven’t really done proper research into this (on my to-do list for 2020), but there are a lot of smoking guns and fishyness surrounding climate change. Too many for my liking.

Yes, we certainly could do a better job of stewarding the earth, but the issue needs to be one of stewardship, not worship; a lot of environmentalists seem to worship Mother Earth in almost a pagan way.

Anyway, sorry for the novel, but for better or worse, those are my current thoughts on climate change, and why I’m so suspicious of it. I haven’t done my research, but I smell a rat.

I would love to hear your thoughts also, Janice. If you’ve any info about any of my concerns, or anything else the you think is very convincing, I’d love to hear about it.

    Dave Wernli

    Written by

    I help Christians stuck in brokenness live their God-given identity in wholeness, living the adventure God created them for.