@@gi169 🤣😂😭 Two minds definitely think alike! I thought I'd research the topic and see what is being said. Thank-you, Gil God bless you as well my friend!
About forest fires, I live in rural N California and it doesn’t matter if we have drought or rain, there is danger every year now and that’s due to Poor Forest Management, NOT warmer temps or climate change
The climate change cultus is constantly being used by our public officials to make excuses for their failures. This issue is much bigger than “the science” and thus it must be discussed more concisely and with humility no matter what your opinion.
This is basically the same situation in large areas of Australia. The irony is that I find conservatives unwilling to recognise we've done a worse job of managing bushland than indigenous folk did for a very long time but progressive types attributing these dangerous fires to climate change when there's tangible things we could do on the ground to mitigate fire risk. Maybe we could all just agree that fire is a perennial problem here(always has been and our ecology bears the proof of this)and land management has to be a priority regardless of anything else. Also cheers to the fact that we have personnel crossing the Pacific both ways to be in firefighting both here and in the States when things get out of hand. Glad that sort of common sense win-win is happening at least.
Anyone heard of "manufactured consensus?" It's the "consensus" you get when you push out the qualified dissenters out of the conversation. This is occurring in diverse fields including climate science, medicine, etc. Are you not aware of this? This occurred on an industrial scale during covid and has been occurring in climate science.
Dr. Ortlund, As much as I appreciate your channel, I think you're missing the obvious: most conservatives in the USA reject the "climate change" narrative for many reasons; some intuitive, some science-based. Several issues (if anything, please read the last two points): 1. The planet earth is *not* a closed system. There is no way to block gasses from escaping or entering the planet, nor can scientists block other heat-inducing factors from entering or escaping the planet. This would have to happen in order to do a definitive test as to the effect of CO2 (or any) gasses. So any time scientific bodies (like the IPCC) get together to discuss such matters, they're talking about opinions, and models and data points. They're not talking about empirical test results. 2. All of the scary climate-change models of the past ~40 years have failed in their projections. All of them! Am I the only one that remembers that the 70s scare was 'global freezing', then in the 90s, it was 'global warming' and now it's 'global climate change'? Regardless of the data points used to bolster any scientist's opinion, this is not empirical science. It is guessing at best, scaremongering at worst. (and usually it's scaremongering) 3. The same scientists warning of "climate change" will readily admit that the planet has changed radically multiple times over the past million years. It is then the duty of the scientist to *prove* (not speculate) that the changes we're seeing today are man-made and not the planet doing what the planet, according to them, has always done. And the only way to do this is to isolate all discrete planet-warming factors (separate man-made planet-warming factors from naturally occurring planet-warming factors) and test them independently. This has not been done by any agency anywhere for one simple reason: it can NOT be done. Because to do so, you need a closed system. (See point #1) 4. The politicians bellyaching the most about climate change are consistently the most hypocritical. Not only in their private lives and personal consumption of energy, but also in their steadfast refusal to push for the cleanest form of energy: nuclear. 5. The nations most concerned about climate change steadfastly refuse to do anything about the nations spewing the most toxins into the environment. Why the hypocrisy? Let's be frank: If one cannot answer this question, then it proves they are not really interested in real solutions, and they are not qualified to discuss solutions. There is no point taking the USA to task (with our ~11% super-clean contribution) while ignoring countries that spew toxins with reckless abandon. (China alone creates more global-warming toxins than all developed nations COMBINED! ). Add in the rest of these Asian countries (India, etc), and these nations create more than 85% of all the toxins that allegedly contribute to climate change. Forcing the USA to go from 11% to 10% (a massive 10% reduction - which will take decades and trillions of dollars) while China goes from 27% to 40% ..dittos for India and all the other Asian countries) will do no one any good, and cause irreparable harm in the process, spending trillions for not one iota of progress). 6. All the nations that have put their shoulders behind climate-change measures have seen their economy crater, with their poor being hardest hit. Don't be fooled: This is by design. 7. Almost all of the measures supposedly aimed at reducing climate change have the net result of contravening the Creation Mandate. Do you think satan is aware of this? (I have seen this first-hand in my work in multiple third-world countries) Rest assured: satan has a vested interest in how we handle the environment. He has a vested interest in seeing to it that people are fooled by what is good for humans and what is good for the environment. While we're in the process of following the Creation Mandate, let's spend some time trying to figure out his strategy too, because rest assured, he has a counterfeit creation mandate. (When we do, we'll be closer to understanding why governmental funding keeps IPCC scientists singing the same tune, and why there are a few notable scientists calling their bluff, insisting they were misquoted by the IPCC ...but don't want to raise a big stink about it.) Lastly, let's let wisdom be judged by her **actual** children, not her promised children (ie, let's look at the countries that are really practicing what they preach about climate change and ask ourselves if they're better off with their climate-change measures) [I'm a network engineer, so I collect and analyze data on a regular basis. I've also helped design and install solar-powered solutions and off-grid homes powered 100% by solar]
Carbon dioxide doesn't just miraculously enter earths atmosphere from space. And carbon dioxide doesn't miraculously just leave earths atmosphere either. Similar to how people don't just fly off the planet and disappear, there's a thing called gravity that keeps us here. Same with our atmosphere. The entire Arctic cap is melting away, it will be completely gone in no more than 20-30 years now. And people still don't seem to be aware.
"there's nothing to block gases from escaping or entering the planet" His first point is demonstrably false and based on ignorance, as if he's never heard of gravity before. Like, how does he think oxygen that we breathe stays on earth and doesnt just fly away into space and we all suffocate? And yet, this is one of the most liked comments on this video? Here's a tip for anyone who thinks climate change isn't real. Just go lookup a time lapse of the Arctic ice cap just north of Canada over the past 50 years. It's plainly apparent that the planet is getting hot. And it's all based on our pollution, that is emissions of CO2. Yes CO2 is a pollutant and too much of it is a bad thing. Just like too much oxygen is also bad, even though we need it to survive.b
Look at the census of scientists, I would cancel out the scientists who aren't meteorologists. Look at the scientists that disagree, how many of them are nonexperts. You'll find that most of those who agree with climate changes aren't experts. Intuitive common sensical... ppl who don't agree have absence of common sense. There have been winters of above average snowfall. Gotta stop listening to this propoganda.
A few years ago I switched to calling it "caring for God's creation" and really made progress talking about the topic. This is God's creation and we are called to care for it. Do that and tell people that's what we are doing. When we can start to call it "caring for God's creation", the conversation will change. If your plans don't include God, I am not doing it.
Gavin, I love your videos on apologetics, but I have to disagree with you here. I'm from Argentina. Pastors there more often than not don't have the luxury of having a salary paid by the church and are bi-vocational. Half the country lives in poverty. We honestly don't have the resources to think about this issue. I love God's creation and I try to take care of it however I can, but there are issues of higher priority. When you mention that we should avoid greed, contentment and simplicity, I honestly believe you are thinking it through the lenses of your particular context in USA, where even poor people are richer than the average person in other countries. When you say we have to study these issues: Ideally, yes. But how many other things do we need to study? And what about our daily jobs and families? Sometimes we can't study every subject as much as we would like. I'm passionate about learning and I still don't have the time to learn everything I'd like to learn. There is so much to learn about philosophy, science, theology, church history, etc.. I'm a software engineer, so I also need to learn new things everyday just to keep my job. And I'm a husband that needs to take care of his family, and learn new ways to provide for them everything they need. I do believe than the principles you expose are correct, but in practice, this is not something that can be applied to the issue of Climate Change for all Christians accross the world. And even though I agree with the principles exposed, I think there is room for disagreement about the "scientific concencensus" and the actual solutions proposed by the scientists.
I've become more skeptical of the current climate change consensus as I grow older, and by observing how climate change tends to be entangled with other controversial progressive issues, I'm even more wary of it. Even so, climate change, if conclusively true, does not have any economically viable solutions. Electric cars are not a solution, neither are renewable energy sources like solar or wind. Nuclear is the way to go, but even green environmentalists reject nuclear for its association with nuclear waste and atomic bombs.
Electric utilities over fossil fuels is a good place to start, and it is economically viable. I've saved plenty of money by switching my home electricity to renewable energy. Have you considered this option?
@@CDK008-hm3uewhen you bought these items for renewable energy products did you account for all the carbon, hydro carbons. And heavy metals used in the process to make them and the waste products used in the manufacturing process? Did you account for the environmentally UNfriendly materials that will be released when at the end of the items service life? By your post here, I’d definitely say you didn’t .
@@shawnc.madden2181 wind and solar. You'll have to look at what companies serve your region and your utility company with electricity. But the sign up process is fairly simple if you live in the United States. Depending on what state you live in. Just check your electric bill and it might have more information about how to shop for your own electrical supplier.
I would probably be more receptive to talk about Climate Change if the solution didn't always seem to involve a consolidation of power into government hands and a perpetual expansion of their authority.
You can put power in the hands of the private sector by investing in green energy companies. Be it nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc. Or American EV vehicle manufacturers, which are American originating companies, like Ford or Chevy. Which empowers the people.
@@charliedontsurf334 the most media activity I've seen around nuclear, relates to Bill Gates support of terra energy or terra power. But I don't see much interest from either the left or the right in nuclear. But it is a viable option. France has ran almost completely on nuclear energy for decades, as an example.
@@jjoesmith331 Nuclear is the only option that has a snowball's chance in Hell of actually doing anything on CO2 pollution. The Right doesn't do anything because they don't agree on anything. Christians are only part of the Right. It is the Leftist Environmentalists who actively shut down nuclear powerplants.
That seems to be a very reasonable and modest appeal: to study, think and talk more about an issue that very many people think is a very important issue.
As a Christian working in academia, I hear people talk about climate change so much and mix it with so many other ideological tropes that I get rather jaded. It's good to hear from someone dealing with a different demographic. I think we need a humble posture. Climate change is a real problem, but actually we are never going to "solve" the whole issue. Instead, we need to break it down into smaller problems that we can address, especially through technology. But technology doesn't excuse us Christians from taking seriously the idea that we should live more simply and consume less. So, I guess I mostly agree with your position, from what I can tell.
Are you aware that the climate has always been changing ever since God created this world? What issue specifically needs to be "solved"? If you are a Christian, you need to speak Biblically from a biblical worldview, not from a secular pagan worldview.
The problem is the Climate change alarmist , they do not want to have a discussion. Those who opposed the narrative are cancelled. Any university professor who dare to question any of the tenets of this new religion is immediately fire or ostracized. Two example are Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Pielke Jr. You can look their testimony how they where treated by "the consensus". So what science normally do to invite discussion is not allow. You can see the John Robson CDN discussion nexus. The videos will show the reality of the discussion. here you can see Dr. Pielke Jr. mailchi.mp/climatedn/cdn_newsletter_240717 The rest of the people that voice they opinion are retired, Nobody can fire them of their retirement. If you happen to watch any of this videos, let me know how they fare. Thank You
“I don’t think there’s anything theologically that would discourage us from caring about an issue like climate change.” Do you realize how expensive and unreliable “green” energy is? Do you know what happens to mankind when the price of energy increases and is priced out of the common man’s “budget”? Extreme poverty for the general man. This leads to -lowered life expectancy -starvation - increased risk of illness -increase risk of abuse, theft, murder, and prostitution. -reduced productivity as energy makes us more efficient, therefore, removing availability of affordable energy will lead to decreased productivity. This means less food and other goods being produced and increased costs in transporting goods. God also calls us to love one another. How is it loving to knowingly and purposefully thrust society into mass poverty? These are just some of the things that come to mind.
I love Gavin’s theological videos but I’m not sure what he’s read about this issue. Some good books are: Eco Imperialism by Paul Driessen Climate Confusion By Roy Spencer Green Hell By Steve Molloy Inconvenient Facts By Gregory Wrightstone Cool It By Björn Lomborg Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years) By Singer and Avery Blue Planet in Green Shackles By Václav Klaus Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable? By Anthony Watts… Christians need to study before jumping on a bandwagon or leading others according to cultural mantras. The globalist radical eco agenda WILL impoverish and kill many. CO2 is not an enemy. Please read!!! For those of you who prefer a novel, read Climate of Fear by Michael Crichton. The footnotes and dialogue are amazingly well-researched.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with being a good steward and caring for the environment, but we must do so in a PRO-human way. We can't gloss over the fact that the climate cultists are at their core anti-human and boast about the various eugenic depopulation mechanisms which are a part of their so-called green agenda. For cryin out loud, they want to ban gas stoves, furnaces, and gas generators. This will lead to the deaths of many Upstate New Yorkers every winter. It's not like snow and freezing temps has disappeared in these parts. I for one am grateful to have had a gas stove to provide heat in my home during last Christmas' blizzard and power outage. Kathy Hochul and her WEF ilk are evil. It floors me that any Christian can get on board with their evil anti-human agenda.
Some forms of green energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels. Wind energy is cheaper than coal for example. Nuclear energy is cheap as well. Many conservative politicians support nuclear energy development. And many green energy options can benefit the private sector as well, such as hybrid vehicles manufactured in American companies like Ford and Chevy.
The problem with this climate change talk is the statist interventionist policies. No one would care if someone personally and freely chose to eat bugs, to use less water or stop using power for certain parts of the day to help the environment. More power to them. But when you start forcing us through government coercion to eat bugs instead of real meat, stop using water and electricity for our homes then that’s where most people have problems. Eliminate government coercion and instead win people to your side through good arguments and reason and a compelling moral vision. But again, this tends to not be the route most climate change activists tend to take.
I would think that a major part of Gavin's position is that, protecting the environment aligns with stewardship of God's creation. That's about as morally good as it gets.
When you gather electricity, water, and food solely from the land you own, you can ignore the collective aspect. Until then you’ll have to consider others in your usage of those things.
The biggest evidence to me that all the critics aren’t serious: this video still only has 9k views. Too many Christians (not following the advice of St. James) are being quick to speak and slow to hear…
If so then that applies to the defence too; I was just at a video discussing Meg Basham's book and there were angry demands for retractions from people who haven't read the book or even the part on Ortlund.
The video only has 9k views likely because it's been deemed political vs theological. It's possible it's both. The issue is "Climate change" is a loaded term. Which includes it being anthropomorphic.
As Christians, our focus should be proclaiming the truth of the gospel, the message that has the power to save souls. Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. What we can know for certain is that God is good and sovereign, and that Planet Earth will be our habitat for as long as God desires it to be. Psalm 46:2-3, "Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging."
I think that one piece of the solution to climate change is nuclear energy. From what I understand about the topic, it’s by far the most efficient alternative energy source and, contrary to popular belief, very safe and clean.
I agree that nuclear is part of the solution. But it's not clear that it's the most efficient alternative energy source. In most energy markets some form of renewable energy is the cheapest energy source. And renewables are much quicker to build - nuclear power plants typically take a decade to build, whilst solar panels and wind turbines can be manufactured and installed within a few months.
@N/A I'm not arguing that nuclear shouldn't play a role, though I disagree that it must "inevitably" play a role. Experts say that it is actually possible to run a grid on 100% renewables even if you don't have a good source of geothermal or hydroelectric. I'm simply pointing out that renewables are cheap, quick to build, and can be used in circumstances where a large power plant is simply too much. None of these things are true of nuclear, which is why I think that switching from fossil fuels should be done primarily by switching to renewables with nuclear being there to cover that last 10% or so where renewables would start to get expensive. It's also worth noting that renewables can have the effect of reducing consumption. There's some evidence that households with solar panels will reduce their energy usage in order to try and get into profit on their energy bill (at least during the summer). So encouraging the uptake of domestic solar panels gives additional benefits to everybody except the people who run big power plants.
@N/A Bill Gates tends to focus in on advanced technologies rather than more practical ones. Batteries aren't the only way to store energy. You can, for example, use renewables to pump water uphill when there's excess power generation and then send that water downhill through a turbine when there's a lack. And properly connected grids massively reduce the issue with wind - it's incredibly rare that the wind isn't blowing somewhere. Nuclear generates highly toxic waste throughout its life, as well as when you decommission a plant. Solar and wind only generate waste when a turbine or solar panel comes to the end of its life. I'm not sure I understand your point about efficiency. Solar and wind turn energy that ultimately comes from the sun directly into electricity. Nuclear uses uranium, or a similar material, to generate heat, which then heats a container of water, which then flows through a turbine. The efficiency of those turbines is pretty much the same as that of a wind turbine. We only have decades to respond if we want to risk global temperature rises of well over 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels (and we only avoid extreme consequences if we limit it to below 1.5 degrees). So whilst I agree that nuclear needs to be part of the solution, I still think that we make more progress by focusing primarily on renewables and secondarily on nuclear, whilst you seem to think the opposite. And it's not the radioactivity of the materials that generates nuclear power, it's their ability to be fused together by extreme heat.
@N/A I agree with your latest comment. Russia shelling a nuclear power plant on Friday morning demonstrates that there are major problems having nuclear in potential conflict zones (though obviously you don't necessarily know what is going to become a conflict zone during the plant's lifetime when you're planning and building).Fukushima demonstrates that they are a bad fit for earthquake zones (though I'd expect that most earthquake zones have good geothermal potential for an alternative "always on except during maintenance or equipment failure" power source, and Iceland proves that you can run a country on 100% geothermal).
I just came here from your video about Megan Basham (horrible slander I agree BTW). I think what you are missing about the Climate Change issue is how cultic it is. You seem to have this idea that there is a consensus of free minds, but in reality there is a lot of groupthink and social pressure, and an enormous amount of funding opportunity involved. When I was a postdoctoral scientist, I once expressed my own view at the time: that climate change is probably happening, but its not worth destroying the economy over. Both my senior colleagues told me that they agree, but they said it in such a way as to communicate that I should probably not say it again. I recommend anyone to listen to Bjorn Lomborg. He takes it seriously, basically accepts the IPCC, cites it for all his claims, but shows its not a big deal in the way mainstream media or popular science would make you think. My mature view (take a deep breath and prepare to be shocked) is that CO2 is actually good for the world. The amount of plant biomass produced every year is now greater than before, because in many cases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the limiting factor on their growth. A warmer world also means more fresh water than ever before on average (warmer air carries more water vapor and drives weather/winds faster, leading to more precipitation). Therefore we should be focused on building dams and flood defenses to control and distribute this bonanza of fresh water. But there is no point in worrying about fossil fuel use, which is a lost cause in any case, since there is no way that China or India is going to stop using coal any time soon. I am not American, and I do know what you mean about Americans seeming to be anti-intellectual. Often they are. But the Bible does warn against "the wisdom of the wise" and I do like the fact that Americans are highly resistant to coercive authority; they are "protestant" in their approach to all kinds of things. It has some downsides; I have noticed that within any group in the USA it is common to see groupthink. BUT overall because there are so many groups that think differently, there is overall a much greater diversity of thought here than anywhere else in the world, and that is a real strength.
I have been following the Megan Basham issue as well. I think what you have said makes plenty of sense and that God designed the earth to be able to withstand population growth and resource use. However, the use of toxic chemicals and plastics and the wastefulness that we seem to cherish, as Americans, is problematic. The never ending consumption of plastic and our willingness to recklessly use harsh chemicals for the sake of convenience is just poor stewardship. I want to see Christians being excellent stewards, but for Christians to be leading some kind of charge does seem to be inciting Christians to a certain activism that I'm not sure I can support. It's a tough issue.
You cannot build dams and levees large enough, nor fast enough, to deal with the issue that is being sowed. Also, the issue affects things like food production and agriculture. Fish populations and marine food products. You can't just pump water from the ocean over mountains whenever a lake dries up. It's not feasible etc.
@andyjones1982. I have a lot of respect for your take on things. Many good points. I came back and re-listened to this talk. He is indeed far more incredulous than I thought first time through. Not only does he seem naïve to the rampant politicization of science but to the gravity of Great Reset thuggery! So yes, there are potential negative consequences to giving in on this issue. Plus, as you state quite well, there’s almost nothing we can do in the West (short of nuking China) to alleviate the situation. I’m an ardent environmentalist. I wish there were something we could do, at least in a general sense. Unfortunately, Ortlund has “drunk the kool-aid,” so to speak. He lacks epistemological humility on this one. “I’m NOT a scientist!” he proclaims, “But I know without a shadow of a doubt how earth-shattering serious this all is!” Well, I’M not a scientist, and I have no idea who’s telling the truth on this one…. I truly have no idea how Gavin became such a lemming on this issue…unless he’s trapped in a bit of a political bubble. Sorry for sounding so negative toward Gavin here.I agree that Megan is in the wrong. And “Truth Unites” is probably my favorite CZcams channel.
I’m more ignorant than you on this topic, but I’ve often wondered “why do we assume that everything about climate change is bad?” Most things in this life are filled with pros and cons, why would this issue be any different?
@@manualboyca it's not climate change that is the bad part. The bad part is that we don't have a way of limiting or stopping it. It's like being in a bathtub. There's nothing wrong with taking a bath. Nothing wrong with warming up the water, nothing wrong with more water in the tub. But what is a problem is if you don't know how to turn off the spigot or stop it from warming up. And the matter becomes even worse if we are responsible for turning the spigot on and turning the heat up.
Brother, I don't agree with you on this Climate Change issue for a couple of reasons, though I understand your approach. Anyway, you DID NOT DESERVE the treatment you have been receiving lately in Basham's book. I've been reading what that lady used to post in X during the last year and I used to find myself at odds with her politically-charged spiritually-sanitized views of doctrine, politics, and Christian life. I have been blessed with your work, though I do not always agree which I find OK. You are my brother in Christ. So, lift up your head and keep trusting the Lord.
@@charliedontsurf334the bible doesn't define man's impact on climate change, Gavin is entitled to his opinion just as Megan is, her implication is defamation and I opposed this video 2 years ago when he posted it
@@charliedontsurf334 I don't agree with Gavin in Climate change. But I would never consider that as sufficient to consider him a shepherd for sale which is a gross acussation. I did not buy the vaccines mandates though I heard few pastors I love to say that getting the vaccine meant loving our neighboor, even a pastor who is a medical doctor to recommend it to the church. I did not buy the reasons nor trusted the "consensus" but I would never considered them as shepherds for sale. The point which I see in Basham's slandering book is a political one, sanitized with doctrinal issues to make them acceptable at first sight. This is the Daily Wire dictating or lecturing Christians on how an orthodox pastor should believe and -surprise surprise- all of them are points of heated political debate. Sorry, I can't buy a book of that kind. The day Ortlund denies the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the incarnation, or the salvation by grace, that day I would think that he has become a shepherd for sale.
Excuse my spam in the comments but, Gavin I support your position with regard to Megan's book - even though we disagree about climate change. I am a PhD in EE with decades of experience so I am not a "real" climate scientist, but I think the anti-alarmist position seems compelling to me especially when you consider the shenanigans being played alarmists - like cherry picking data and sanctioning dissenting climate experts. The good news, Gavin, is that the planet is going to be OK in spite of CO2 levels - in fact things may get better because of rising CO2. We would be MUCH better served by focusing on REAL pollution - things that are toxic to humans and other life.
Planet is going to be okay? One of the point Gavin makes in the video is that of change in climate patterns in local areas and he specifically spoke about less frequent heavy rains. This has been a problem in the place where we live for the last few years. Just last week, 500 people died in Kerala, India as a result landslide, which occurred after unprecedented heavy rain. Livelihood of fishermen are getting affected, because they get less catch because of warm see. Then there are issues of extreme climate events like drought and heavy rain , which destroy agriculture and cause great loss to farmers and cause food inflation.
@@harmonypizza If you think CO2 is causing this, then India/China are going to have to cut their CO2 emissions because the USA/EU reductions don't compare with increases in China/India. Of course, that will affect hundreds of millions of people.
Bob, increased CO2 is a bad thing if it goes unchecked. It will simply continue to cause our climate to warm, causing more heat waves, bigger hurricanes, strain on agriculture, the collapse of coral reef ecosystems, continued melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels which result in more flooding etc.
@@jjoesmith331 Each of the points you're making can be disputed with data. There are many other factors of climate than CO2 and CO2 is only 0.04% while water vapor is much more and water shares the same absorption power spectrum so more energy is likely taken in by water than CO2. Sea level rise has been very consistent at 4mm/year since the Civil War and shows no sign of accelerating even though CO2 has accelerated and even the most modest sea level rise projections have been overly pessimistic. The coral is not dying, in fact, coral likes warm water. Australia's Barrier reef has see a huge (historic) recent increase.
Changing, yes. But that’s a misrepresentation of what the climate change debate is about. There is lots of scientific evidence that the earth is warming and it is our fault - thus it is not “natural” climate change like your comment seems to imply.
@@Iamwrongbut the overwhelming majority of emmisons is actually water that is increasing the climate. Plus 100 years ago our increase in climate warming was close to 4x. Plus there is the heat death of the universe. It seems to me to be very unlikely something that is a real issue. Even if it was there is absolutely nothing we can do. All this will lead to is panick and fear.
@@Iamwrongbut Also this world is in a fallen state so of course it's our fault. And I'm not as ignorant as to say we shouldn't recycle or compost or be frugal. I just don't think people understand that they are dangerously close to Gaia worship in a lot of Christian circles. Appeal to God not government. The Bible even says there will be natural distaters. Blaming it solely on climate changes is kinda secularism at its core. I don't deny climate change. I deny that I have control or any man has control over it.
@@Iamwrongbut Ok but I have other scientists who have said the opposite. Plus that graph they used many years ago was proven falsified and fossil fuel emissions were a very small amount of the isssue. What I'm arguing is that maybe we should think more about why people want us to focus on fossil fuels rather than many other issue of pollution. Also this is much like evolution which is slowly becoming less scientific and more idealistic. Science is just the best hypothesis for cause and effect. I just think we don't have enough information in my opinion.
Had to come here to just offer some encouragement, brother. Many are attacking you for wrong reasons, but many out there like me greatly appreciate your work. You are serving the Lord faithfully and I hope you just continue to make quality content. Blessings, brother Gavin. Continue staying focused on what God has you doing as His servant.
Thank you for this, Gavin. The thing that has baffled me for a long time about many Christians' strong, sometimes vehement reactions to this issue, is that I can see no downside to making many of the lifestyle changes advocated by environmental experts. Worst case, we've cultivated a simpler, less wasteful lifestyle and learnt to be content with less, and we've done it in the hope that maybe it will help others. Even if it turns out it doesn't, so what? It won't have done us any harm in the meantime. We might even grow in some textbook Christian virtues, like contentment, simplicity, sober-mindedness, generosity. Imagine if Jesus' disciples, or Paul's missionary brothers, had said, "Yes, I'll lay down my comfortable lifestyle, but only if you can guarantee me I'll see actual results." I also love that you addressed this strange notion that you have to pick a camp and be passionate about only the issues in that pre-packaged thought bundle, and to the same degree as everyone else in that camp. Such a lie. Bless you!
There is a great panel discussion on Mark Laniers CZcams channel. Look up Green Theology: The Christian Charge Concerning The Ecology @ Lanier Theological Library. As one of the panelists points out in Genesis we are given dominion, which is responsibility. Dr. Katherine Hayhoe is there and she is a Christian and one of the top voices in Climate Science.
I agree. If you personally decide to change your life style because that’s what you believe you should do, that is commendable! If, on the other hand, you vote to spend trillions of dollars to deprive poor people of the cleanest and least expensive forms of energy, that’s sinful.
Excuse me if I don’t want to make changes in my life to reduce “climate change” when so-called “experts” and sky-is-falling politicians are jetting around the world like I go to the grocery store and go on more vacations than I will in my entire life. Do you understand how much pollution comes out of China but I am supposed to pay a climate tax in Canada?? We don’t take the climate change narrative seriously because the so-called experts say one thing and do another. It’s a narrative used to push taxes and control citizens. Get outta here with this nonsense.
stick to air, water, soil and habitat issues. polution too. those are biblical stewardship issues. climate change is largely beyond our pay grade. and the misguided green totalitarianism saddles the global poor with policies that starve the poorest of the poor, while we pat ourselves on the back. its misguided.
Plastic waste is horrible. We see garbage blowing around all over the roads in water ways etc. Landfill waste is disgusting. We have become wasteful and destructive. We need to really be careful and have better environmental policy
Hard part about that is that recycling is not a valid solution to it either. It puts double the number of waste collection trucks on the road every day (not to mention the issue with manufacturing them). Also the emissions and nasty chemicals from recycling. Solution can only be to be less wasteful
@@coltonmoore4572 The environmental movement has always said that we should reduce the amount of stuff we use as the first priority, reuse stuff as the second, and only then resort to recycling. But whilst recycling isn't the best solution, it's clearly less problematic than landfill or incineration as a method of dealing with those things we can't reuse.
@@stephengray1344 totally agree with using less! But I'm not convinced that doubling emissions from waste collection vehicles and putting a cocktail of chemicals in the atmosphere from recycling is preferable to a landfill.
@@coltonmoore4572 Landfill puts a cocktail of toxic chemicals in the air, as the waste decays. Whilst recycling rarely produces substantially worse chemical emissions than manufacturing the same goods from raw materials. It isn't necessary to double the number of waste collection vehicles in order to have a recycling program. Amsterdam collects its waste by a series of pneumatic tubes, rather than by using waste collection vehicles. And many places with recycling collections only collect residual waste half as often as they did before they started collecting recycling.
@@stephengray1344 I'll defer to your expertise on the decaying of landfills. I'm not studied in that area. It definitely depends on what is being recycled. Glass and metal are one thing. But plastic is pretty nasty. I think that a good alternative is compostable products or switching to reusable products. Plastic just is nasty stuff no matter what. I think my point is that we get behind these massive projects like recycling, but don't think about some of the negative effects. Like those tubes in Amsterdam... what would that look like? Seems like a lot of construction work and lots of plastic. In waste collection vehicles, I'm just pulling data from California. They doubled the number of vehicles. But it's not just that they are on the road every day. It's the manufacturing of those vehicles that is also an issue. Lithium for the batteries. Etc. I agree that we are overly wasteful. But a great solution has not been found yet. And one won't be found until we find compostable materials in my opinion.
Gavin, it's one thing to tell christians they Should care about the environment. It's another thing to say that Christians should be concerned about climate change. You're already presuming that climate change is true and you've attached and "ought" to the conscience of the christian trying to make it binding. You've already decided for everybody. Answers in Genesis would disagree with you
One thing that I think gets neglected in this discussion is that I don't see people acknowledging that the poorest and least developed countries are basically being told that the industrialisation that allowed other countries to generate massive economies aren't permitted to them.
There is nothing wrong with this video for Megan Basham to attack. It is not anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-church, or theologically heretical. She has slandered a very good scholar without reason and lied about his character. She has done so only to benefit her pocketbook. Bottom line, Megan Basham is guilty of falsely accusing a brother in Christ. She needs to retract her comments and apologize. Then, if she has the courage, burn the book.
@@warwickallen6067 Thanks for your comment. I still question Megan's motive to build a case against false shepherds using the innocent as fodder. Gavin was clearly hurt by her comments and she has not responded to him. Why is that? I think her actions toward the situation speaks volumes to me. But, thanks for your words. I am mulling them over. I don't want to be guilty of falsely accusing someone myself.
i watched a youtube interview that she had with some guy. my preliminary impression is that she is the type that has genuine convictions, is polarised, isn't very introspective, sees herself as a champion of truth, and her iq is
Enjoyed this video a ton. I've always said the three important issues of our time are the Gospel, abortion, and climate change (in that order). I think it is fairly undeniable that climate change is happening. Obviously scientists debate on the amount of effect people have and the severity of the issue. But it does need to be addressed for sure. I think a big thing to consider though is what we do with that information. Do we just stop all fossil fuel production? And it is a worldwide issue, so if we do that, we greatly stifle the economies of other nations and keep people in massive poverty where they can't feed themselves. So if we don't just stop using all fossil fuels, where do we get energy from? Solar isn't an option: what do you do when it is cloudy? Same with wind: what if it isn't windy? Put the energy in batteries that require lithium? Not to mention the materials that go into solar panels and wind turbines. Also, with wind specifically, if the wind blows too fast, it requires energy to cool the turbines. Also, the wings are made of fiberglass, and they are beginning to fall apart. You can't recycle fiberglass. And anyone who has seen the wings be hauled anywhere, they are massive. Speaking of recycling, it is one of the worst things you can do. Doubles the number of waste collection vehicles. And recycling is not a clean process. Again, love the idea that we should do something, but other than being less wasteful, the question is what do we do? I advocate for nuclear and hydropower. And I think landfills and composting is better than recycling, but if we could simply go to reusable products, that would be even better. Keep making important videos like this! I enjoyed watching it. Just be aware that even if there is a desire to do something, the ability to do it does not always exist.
@N/A totally agree that there are upsides to these clean options. My point is that we don't recognize the downsides. We should have learned from using methyl chloride in refrigerators that miracle things have side effects too. But it seems like people just want to ignore any possible bad effects of these things. Especially the lithium for batteries. That's the biggest one
"Science is an inherently conservative process." This is not true when science is funded by corporations,non-profits, and governments seeking specific results. Also, not all "science" is equally scientific. Climate science depends enormously on presuppositions built into computer driven climate models.
I listened to Shepherds for Sale. I listened to his response. I listened to this video. They're both right. "I'm only saying Christians can't responsibly ignore this issue by not reading the science etc." Earnest and honest position. "Let me point you to the things you need to consider, and let me tell you where I land." This is where it's laying an undue burden. Would not an earnest but undefensive Christian listen to this and think "I guess I need to read all this stuff"? But you're looking in the wrong place. Yes there's a "scientific consensus" view, but contrary to his point it's unfalsifiable. You can't prove humans aren't causing climate change. The science is not accessible to you. You can read what "scientists agree on", but the scientific community has discredited itself (see COVID). The question is not whether the science backs it up. The question is whether it's worth believing. And an earnest Christian doesn't need to read the studies to conclude in good faith that it's not worth their time to do deep study.
I'd love to see you do an interview with Bob Murphy on this, he's a Christian economist that has looked specifically at the cost of the proposed government solutions compared to the potential costs of climate change. That question is not a climate science question but really an economic one. I'd argue that the cost of the various proposed measures of reducing energy consumption would have a much higher cost, especially on the poorest countries since the availability of cheap energy is a huge factor in lifting people out of poverty and raising the standard of living.
Does he take into account the cost of the impacts of climate change? Because those fall disproportionately on the poorest countries (who are the strongest voices calling for international action on the issue). It's also worth noting that in most places renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables are also easier to deploy in places which don't have established power grids, since you can install small-scale renewable generation much more easily than you can install small-scale fossil fuel plants. And in poor countries you don't have to keep importing coal, oil, or gas to run them.
@N/A He doesn't say that switching to renewables changes the demand for energy, but rather reduces the availability of cheap energy because renewables are more expensive.
@@stephengray1344 Are you taking into account government subsidies when saying that renewables are cheaper? If they are only "cheaper" because of subsidies, then they are not actually cheaper, just paid for through different (and, I would argue, thoroughly unjust) means.
@@SotS1689 The figures I've seen are ones that try to account for the effect of subsidies (and all all forms of energy generation receive some form of government subsidy in almost all Western countries).
@N/A @Stephen Gray, I'd be interested in those resources if you can send a few links over. I'm also against gov't subsidies of fossil fuels (actually, I'm against all gov't subsidies) and so ideally, if renewable energy is actually cheaper and more reliable (or at least as reliable) then the free market would naturally move in that direction, which I don't view as a bad thing if they are indeed more reliable and cheaper. Unfortunately, most countries don't have anything close to a free market in energy (including the USA). What I think is very unwise, is attempting to solve the issue through gov't coercion (which I recognize no one has advocated for here, so I'm not implying that this is your view) with policies that will do more damage than good. Even mainstream climate economists (such as William ENordhaus who won the nobel prize for his works on the economics of climate change) admit that the measures necessary to limit the global temp. warming to 1.5C would be economically more disastrous than doing nothing.
Thanks for chatting with us about this. I think my contention typically revolves around the politicization of the issue. I will say it would be productive to present criticisms and address those. Thoughts: - not sure a baseline of only 60 years ago is convincing in itself to show an impact of temperature - greenhouse gas are actually necessary for us to live (earth would be too cold) they are not bad but rather the over accumulation can be. Water vapor is actually a greenhouse gas and is responsible for the most impact - greenhouse gases don’t stay around forever e.g. plants absorb CO2 - the increase in wildfires talking point has been pretty well debunked as it has been shown more driven by management practices - I am a little appalled you would compare abortion to impacts from climate change. Murdering a child is much different than the sea rising slowly over many years. Humans can adapt to some changes in climate unless of course they have been killed via abortion in which case they are dead. You’re a smart guy and I think you can make a much better comparison - what period can we point to and say was the optimal climate on earth or where we say it was ‘normal’ and also why we say it is? All in all I do believe humans impact the earths climate, however to what degree that happens seems to be hard to pinpoint. This isn’t helped by the leading voices like Al Gore saying by 2020 all the coasts would be submerged and obviously they aren’t. The problem is ‘science’ rarely admits when they were wrong if they are such as talking about how coal takes millions of years to form but yet it is forming on Mount Saint Helens in Washington only 30 years after the eruption. I do love you as a brother in Christ and obviously any differences in opinion on this have no bearing on what I think of you. God bless you and thanks for your ministry!
Agreed - The politicization of it has drowned trust in any part of it. There is a difference between being environmentally conservative, and a climate activist. There are many goals governments could tackle that are visible which they simply don't. We pay off China to take our trash, and they dump it on poor countries. We avoid sustainable energy just so there's a constant industry of temporary, inefficient, expensive products. If any of the activism tackled these obvious issues in environmental protections, then I'd have more reason to believe the rest. We're being told that the only way to save ourselves from total annihilation, and moral ignorance, is to give governments more power. That was about as convenient of a message as the covid measures enforced over two years. The population projection is actually false, we're in a birth-rate crisis, yet we see propaganda telling people that having children is damaging the planet. There is no 'science'. There are scientists. The loudest of the activists are overwhelmingly not scientists, but politically driven individuals. I do not trust this urgency is reflective on truth, nor an actual compassion of the planet.
Yea, a few thoughts to play off of this comment. One, the idea that we can model something as complex as the climate/atmosphere of the world with any certainty weeks into the future, let alone years/decades, is preposterous. Many predictions, like that of the aforementioned Al Gore, based on models like this, have failed spectacularly. Secondly, you can go back 50, 60, 70 years and see other similar calls to alarm for things that did not pan out. At one point the science supposedly told us we were going to enter a devastating freezing period. Of course, this is zero proof that what we're facing today isn't real. It could be more dire than even the most vocal climate alarmists are screaming about. The problem is that the boy has cried wolf several times in regards to climate over the past decades. At any of those points, credible people were pointing to what was being claimed as sound science showing that we were facing a doomsday scenario, and nothing came of it. Third, and probably most importantly, fear is one of the most effective weapons of power that people can wield. When you're dealing with an apocalyptic fear, there are almost no limits to what you can justify. Inevitably, groups, politicians, corporations, etc will try to stoke the fear in order to get power/do what they want to do. If you're reading these things and dismissing it as climate denial, I would ask you to carefully re-read my points. Everything I've said would still be true even if the situation turns out to be as bad or worse than anyone is saying. These are a few reasons to exercise skepticism in the face of what is being sold as an existential threat. There are two sides to the equation here. It's not a free lunch to just completely accept the threat that is being presented. There are great risks in doing so. God bless you.
@@wootsat There was never a point where the science told us we were going to enter a new ice age. Even back in the 1970s (when climate science was largely studying the impact of individual factors, rather than considering the total effect of all factors), the vast majority of scientific papers in the field predicted global warming. Still, if you have any examples of where climate scientists (as opposed to politicians or activists trying to change policy by hyping up the threat to overcome the influence of vested interests like the fossil fuel industry) have cried wolf, I'd be interested to hear them.
Kind of hard for plants to absorb C02 when they're all being chopped down. And yes, oxygen is similar in that we need it to survive. So it's good, however too much of it will also kill us. The optimal climate is what we experience today, because that's what we have built our infrastructure and developed our agriculture around.
"there's nothing that should make christians not care about climate change" - there is that one thing though all such caring which is framed by in spirit of the age end up with a mega state far beyond the biblical mandate for kings. There's far more wisdom in people like sir Roger Scruton, Russell Kirk or even Jordan Peterson who can talk about the environment in humane ways, than the christian who swallows up both the problem statement and solution from NY times, WSJ or some deranged green activist. Remember that the same scientists continuously tell use humans are machines, the middle ages were dark times with neanderthals still running around, and that though they can predict the temperature at the north pole 50 million years ago they still didn't crack the boy/girl distinction. Does it mean science is useless? no. Does it mean reading 3 books on climate change shouldn't change your theological outlook on the biblical role of the state? yes. Care about the environment. And care deeply. But if you find yourself everyday thinking about some polluted river in South East Asia while you can't be bothered to tend to your own backward garden, you're probably not on the right path. If you end up concluding UN is a good thing because we can impose climate justice to the ends of the earth you're definitely not in a position to scold christians because they are wary of green globalism for "socio-political" reasons. It's not the environment that good christians don't care for, it's the people who can't imagine any other way to steward the creation except through the politico-scientists wielding godly powers.
You almost said it as I was thinking it before I watched the video: since when does God not give our actions consequences?? I started my Christian journey in a Federal prison--not the best place to be discipled! But I listened to gobs of Christian radio and largely it was beneficial--but the thought package where Christian=political conservative and Climate change=political liberal was imbibed. I was dismissive until one day it hit me--how does our use of resources not merit consequences in God's eyes?? I intend to share this video with friends and I pray they'll be open to the idea and not "thought packaged."
I love you Gavin but as an autistic conservative Christian, I STRONGLY disagree with the content of this video. But I don't want to disrupt your comments section too much. I just want to say I love you a lot and that your support for climate change ideology is support for pedophilia, sex changes for five year olds, Infanticide, and all the other consequences of giving credibility to Democrats. I am extremely turned off by this and if you are politically left leaning I hope you don't make more videos about it, because I really like and trust you. But this bothers me an awful lot due to my autism. You're awesome though Brother!!!!!!! Please do not vote for Democrats. No matter what you think about the earth. They do bad things to kids. Edit: I also don't understand why this is a big deal in light of the facts that we're all going to die, earth is going to be destroyed in fire, it will be rebuilt as a Paradise again, and we will live there forever. Why worry about visible things instead of invisible things? God is in control. ❤️🌿
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You might notice I did not say a single thing about Republicans or Democrats in this video. Part of my concern is that we should not treat an issue based just upon its political associations. Thanks again for the kind words. God bless
@@TruthUnites You're welcome, and thank you very much. I appreciate you a lot, and thank you for replying to me! I'm not used to that, lol. You know, I do appreciate that you're probably not a democrat but you believe in this stuff. I could research it in earnest and really find out as best I can if it's real or exaggerated. I guess it's amazing how political the idea is. It is interesting how you said it's only so political and divisive in America. I try not to believe things just for political reasons. I do think giving credibility to climate change, in this country, generally does play out in favor of Democrats because they're generally the ones focusing on that. If it really is real, I guess you're wise to care about it. I just worry about giving credibility to the left leaning realm at all. And even if it's real, I don't know why it matters since the world is going to be destroyed on purpose anyway. By God I mean. God bless you superabundantly.
I just searched for this video after reading Megan Basham‘s book. I heard about your rebuttal video but wanted to watch the original and make a decision for myself as to whether or not she accurately represented you. Personally, I feel like what she put in her book is completely accurate and nearly Word for Word what you said in this video. I am not sure if you are trying to do damage control or trying to use her fame for your own publicity but either way she definitely accurately represented your video.
So Gavin is a good primary example in a chapter of a book “Shepards for Sale?” Truly, I’m seeking defenders of Megan to provide specifics and I haven’t found one yet. Could you help me out? :)
I love your channel, but I find it odd how you approach this subject compared to theological topics. You said that we need to "hit the books" and study the evidence for climate change. However, when you mentioned the NUMBER ONE objection to climate change - namely, the cyclical nature of temperatures of the earth - you simply dismissed it, saying "I just don't buy that." Are you not going to "hit the books" on that objection? Are you not going to interact with data from ice samples showing a regular pattern of temperatures rising and dropping in regular cycles that go back THOUSANDS of years? Are you not going to look into the data that the CO2 in the air is not much higher than it was 3,000 years ago? I could go on (if I was smarter). With theological issues, you do a lot of research and you are fair about both sides of the issue. That's why I love your channel. But on this issue (which is, admittedly, not your field of study), I feel that you are just pushing for one side without giving much study on the opposing theories.
Wow, Dr. Ortlund. I'm impressed you would talk about something like this that's so divisive. I have even more respect for you. I think Christians' hesitation with this issue stems from fear of the tendency for authorities to use emergencies to take and hold power. However, I think an honest, fact-based approach is the best one. And then we take action based on what good (truly good) steps we can take to promote human flourishing.
It sounds like you are a fan of Dr. Ortland. So am I. It sounds like you are being very polite to him on this subject. I see that this video by Dr. Ortland was made two years ago. I hope that by now he has had time to recognize that the solutions that are proposed for global climate change are worse for the environment than the original problem.
@@smt0202 are you aware that roughly half of all wildlife populations, God's created kinds, have vanished in the past 150 years? You think that our actions do not have repercussions? Have you ever seen a northern white rhino? A tasmanian tiger or dodo bird? The current rate of habitat destruction and extinction the animal kingdom is the worst seen in history since the end of the dinosaurs. It's so bad, scientists are calling it the "anthropocene". It's own geologic epoch marking the decline of biodiversity.
I really appreciate you talking about this issue. I became convinced of the science several years ago but, as an evangelical Christian conservative, I typically don’t talk about it at all because it is not a welcomed opinion. So, thank you. Blessings, Doc!
I have recently had the epiphany that I should care about God's planet recently. I cannot count how many times I have said "it's going to all burn up anyways." But... that's not how God sees his creation as he is in the process of redeeming and restoring it from a fallen state. So much of my previous hesitancy is political as you have said. That being said, I'm not giving myself over to climate alarmism. Some of the ideas ... eliminating cows? Seems completely ridiculous. As far as scientific consensus, we have to know that science has been wrong... a lot. We were worried about global cooling back in the 80's, correct? Also, let's not forget there are huge financial incentives to push that narrative and get funding. Intelligent design (I know you are considering macroevolution which to me is not valid still) faces this all the time. They have no funding and no hearing in the scientific community. Do we know how much mankind contributes to temperature change...no (as you said)...but it is largely irrelevant as we should be looking for ways to clean it up. Another hesitation and pause I have is that I also tend to think the world powers will leverage climate change to roll out more power grabs and lockdown type stuff... maybe "carbon credit" system or something. Practically, I want to take care of my land better and look to create less waste and trash. I want to promote healthier practices and recycling... I'm good with that. We are to be stewards of God's creation, and trashing it up and wasting it isn't good stewardship. period. I agree as a Christian we should have a greater motivation to take care of this planet. But, we don't have to let the pendulum swing so far that we start banning cows. Thankful for your channel, Gavin.
It's not true that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 80s. The majority of climate science papers have been predicting global warming since the field was established in the 1970s. And when it comes to financial incentives, there are lots of them on the sceptical side as well. The fossil fuel industry is incredibly rich, and its behaviour on the issue has basically been identical to the way the tobacco industry reacted to evidence that smoking causes cancer. And it's the political, rather than scientific, side of the issue where most of the money is spent. I can see your concerns about governments abusing the issue to grab power, but this happens under governments of all ideologies.
@@stephengray1344 appreciate the response and some valid points! Overall, we would agree, lets take care of our planet for God's glory. But, we can have common sense and have eyes wide open toward other forces pulling for extremes on it.
15:04 Your comparison between 1956-1976 VS 2011-2021 is comparing a very cold period with a very warm period. However, look at 1900-1940 - this was a very warm period also - even warmer than more recently and with much less CO2 in the atmosphere. If you look at graphs of CO2 vs average temp over very long periods you see that CO2 changes FOLLOW changes in temp. In other words, in the past at least, changes in average temperature may have caused changes in CO2. Increasing CO2 you might be aware is greening the Earth - which is not a bad thing! Of course CO2 is changing partly because of fuel consumption but the point is that temperature is independent of CO2 but maybe not the other way around.
Love the video as always! You referenced this at the end of your video, the ability to care about multiple things at once. But my only concern is, like with Pope Francis (a lot of people might disagree), you lose the heart of your message, and our message is the Gospel. The Gospel, at least to me, is about the orientation of being or loves. First the love of God, then all other loves necessarily take their rightful place within your attention. Fighting climate change has been turned into a summum bonum type love, part in parcel of the wider social justice movement. Of course, CC is an important issue but if we were to rank order societies' loves at the moment and the issues corresponding with said love, I would think its all out of whack and in chaos. But, once again, great video and I am glad I heard a reasonable Christian take on this issue!
I agree. I'm in STEM, and I love studying into the natural world and the cosmos and how it reflects God, and how we should care for it. I also think that we should be very careful to not get swept up in whatever worldly approach the world may take, which exalts the creation and shuns the Creator. It's important that we approach this topic with a proper reverence and perspective.
I’m not too worried about climate change, and tend to think lots of it is a government power grab, but no clue why Gavin was attacked so much over this video. This seemed very tame and modest to me.
I agree. He is just giving his conviction in this area after studying it. He has a biblical principle of being good stewards of what God has given us. He's saying that no matter where you land, be open to at least a possibility of an idea that disagrees with your own. To study this topic before you land on a conclusion.
It’s because of what you say about a lot of it being a government power grab. Megan Basham points this out and says that Ortlund is a bit naive and likely influenced by pastors in bed with the government agencies and activists who want more government overreach. It seems you aren’t consuming material on the controversy that actually deals with the contents of the book at the center of it.
@@KMANelPADRINO But he doesn't really recommend any big government plan to tackle climate change-he actually mentions technological innovation as the solution, which is often contrary to big government intervention. He is simply saying that if climate change is true, then Christians should care about it, and there is evidence for climate change we need to take seriously and debate seriously. What is threatening about that? What is his trespass? What if his thesis was "Climate change is real, and the only thing that will stop it is a smaller government, so techological innovation and local private action can take place." Would you be similarly threatened?
@@gabrielrenfro4417 That isn’t true. Virtually all popular technological solutions are sponsored by lobbyists who are pushing for government mandates. Also, nothing I said implies that I’m threatened. In fact, you took the time to postulate a reply to my reply- a reply replete with falsehood concerning the nature of green energy technological innovations and the very scientific source that Ortlund has been citing in this entire video. You may as well go to a Human Rights Campaign rally and try and convince everyone there that they are not interested in changing policy, just in changing hearts and minds.
Oh my gosh! Yes!!!! Finally a Christian who speaks out about this. Praise the Lord. I never understood what is wrong about, and why aren’t we trying harder to be, good stewards of God’s creation.
Very disappointing, it isnt wise to assume someone who doesn't share your opinion hasn't "hit the books". The biggest impact you could make with this video is have it translated to chinese and make some headway over there, the hysteria is the real issue. I dont know anyone advocating for oil spills, ways to waste gasoline, or garbage in the streets. Edit: how about we provide a photo of the sea level rising, side by side comparison. If the water has risen as you say I promise I would change how I see this topic, if it hasn't would it change yours?
7:22 I came here to get your views directly from you. I dont have a side to pick. I never heard of you before this controversy, nor have I ever read anything Megan Bashan has written. I just want to know whete the truth is. However, I have only listened thus far and I hear you saying that people don’t endorse the climate change agenda because they have not done a full complete study of the issue. Also, you imply that those who aren't convinced about climate change aren’t interested in being good srewards of the Earth that God gave us. That's rather condescending and somewhat insulting. I've actually looked at a lot of the science to make up my mind. I've done a deep study. I also try to be a good steward of the Earth. I recycle. I conserve water. I avoid wasting energy. I would use local plants if I had a yard. Etc. Not believing the climate change rhetoric doesn't make me unimformed or a bad steward.
I really, really appreciate this video. And I also appreciate what youve said about covid. You and other pastors need to keep pushing this, even if it causes strife within your churches. And it will. I do not want Ezekiel's vision to be more than an image (but I expect it will be).
Great read for Christian perspective on climate change: Weathering Climate Change by Dr. Hugh Ross. It is a balanced and sound biblical and scientific perspective - offering simple and effective solutions that wont destroy the economy.
Hi Gavin, I just viewed your video. I appreciate the fact that your heart centered on issuing an appeal to fellow Christians about climate change. In my view, you derailed your own efforts by stating that being pro-life includes a concern for climate change. That is a common trope employed by the secular progressives and the corporate press in our culture to avoid reckoning with the evil of murdering the unborn, and to create a false moral equivalence between abortion and climate change. In your own words, you described yourself as a pastor. Therefore, you need to do much better than what you did in this video. I implore you as your fellow brother in Christ to do another video issuing a retraction of the above trope. To say that if one is pro-life that they’d be equally concerned with climate change is morally offensive. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand that shouldn’t characterize us followers of Christ.
After having made it to the end, I would love to see an update to this video where Pastor Gavin engages with some experts in the field who disagree on the implications of what these phenomena are. This is not irenic in the way that many of the interdenominational discussions Gavin hosts and engages in. I would appreciate an update here.
There are essentially no experts that disagree that climate change exists and that it is human influenced. Virtually all major scientific organizations worldwide, including NASA, NOAA, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), agree that human activities are significantly impacting the climate. There are a couple rogue politically funded climate sciences, you'll find one or two out there. But 99% of us are pretty comfortably aware that climate is changing and that our emissions are influencing that.
He thinks about so-called Climate Change every day? Here's some other issues I'd rather my pastor think about every day: The number of people in the US lost and unsaved. The rise of LGBTQ in our society. The amount of sexual trafficking in the US (number 1 or 2 in the world). 800,000 abortions a year in the US. The many children growing up in fatherless households.
Great stuff Gavin. This has been on my mind the last several years. Doesn't it make sense if we were entrusted with dominion over the earth that we can have a great effect upon it, for better or for worse? If we believe in things like the fall of humanity, original sin, and total depravity, shouldn't we expect to see at least some abuse and bad stewardship? For the life of me, I can't see what in Christianity is inherently opposed to this.
I am aware of a stance that global warming i.e. climate change is as bad as it is because people are stepping away from God. Not just the unsaved, but the Assembly as well. If the Assembly (Church) takes the position that it is Israel, it must take into account that catastrophes happen also because of the transgressions of the Assembly.
Clearly we are supposed to be good stewards of the planet, and I try to buy fuel efficient vehicles, conserve energy, recycle, etc. Unfortunately, when you follow the money (to renewable sources and batteries) big business and government (crony capitalism) seem to want us to destroy other parts of the planet (mining heavy metals for batteries that we may or may not recycle well) rather than entertaining multiple options (hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear, etc)
The last time I checked hydrogen fuel cells were not yet a viable mass technology. Nuclear energy has other environmental problems (which is why it hasn't traditionally been pushed by the environmentalist movement). At the moment, renewables and batteries are the cheapest and easiest way to provide like-for-like replacements for the main reasons we burn fossil fuels (electricity and transport). The environmentalist movement has a tendency to push for more systematic changes (e.g. replacing personal cars with walking, cycling, and public transport). But obviously there's less profit to be made in changing things in those ways - so big business and governments influenced by them are more likely to push more consumerist solutions.
@@stephengray1344 My point is that we are not pursuing hydrogen cells, or cleaner nuclear, or other ways to clean carbon dioxide emissions. We are headed down this path, perhaps without thinking through the destruction this single solution will bring in 50 years. Too often our rush to make a profit (though I am a capitalist), backed by political influence, has major negative side effects that were not predicted. A great example is switching from paper to plastic. Paper is a renewable resource (crop), plastic is polluting the planet. The fact that we use wood pulp instead of hemp or some other crop is another example of political influence over industry (with the help of the media, William Hearst). I will be long dead before the ramifications play out, but I have concerns for the folks who are still around.
@@mrcavalieri I agree with the principle behind your concerns (and think that that motive is why we have environmental problems). I'm just saying that a large part of the reason we are taking the kind of approaches we are is because we can't assume that technologies we want to develop will be developed soon enough to be practical. I also think that because policy in Western countries is strongly influenced by the wishes of big business and the very wealthy, solutions to climate change tend to be of the "replace something with the nearest equivalent technology" rather than thinking about how we could reshape society to make it easier for people to make more environmentally responsible decisions.
I’ve learned a lot about church history in a short time by watching Gavin’s videos. I’m impressed by his patient tone on every subject he tackles, even when some people disagreeing with him are bombastic and shrilll. If Gavin believes global climate change is happening does that put him beyond the pale of orthodoxy? If so that is a very different perspective on orthodoxy (small o - what is foundational or essential to our faith). I’m not sure climate change is really happening, but if someone believes it is that does not make him a heretic, not even close. I honestly don’t know the science on this particular subject. The ironic thing is that Gavin is constantly reminding Protestants (which many of us are) what is essential about our faith. He had researched complex issues in enormous depth, using original sources. Then he makes one video about a controversial political issue and people start doubting his faith.
Whether or not the earth is warming, or whether humans are the primary cause of that warming, should be outside of the realm of politics. What we choose to do about it is where politics come in. Gavin didn't say what we should do about it, so I'd say this video was just about completely apolitical
Ice melting does not make the oceans more acidic. Ice would slightly dilute the oceans but otherwise have no effect. CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause deforestation. It actually helps forests grow faster. So many lies so quickly, it's hard to keep up! (22:09)
ice melt absolutely does increase acidity. If you google it you will find dozens of articles discussing this. If you dispute this point you would need some kind of argument, not just an assertion. Also, I never said "CO2" causes deforestation.
@@TruthUnites Pure water has a pH of 7. Ocean water currently has a pH of 8.1. Adding *pure water* will lower the pH by slightly diluting the basicity, but that isn't the same as making it more acidic. The argument is that diluting some of the alkalinity will reduce the buffering capacity of the water thereby allowing a tiny increase in carbonic acid (from CO2) to have a slightly greater effect. There may be a tiny effect here, limited mostly to the surface near the melting ice, where coral reefs certainly don't live. Bust just like almost no one ever discusses the ideal concentration of CO2 (I have argued that it's somewhere between 600-700 ppm), no one discusses the ideal pH of the oceans. It's always assumed that any change is bad.
@@logoschristianacademy6044 the ideal concentration, and temperature of earth by association, is the one that we've adapted to. The one that we live in now. Who would ever make the argument that a warmer planet would be a good thing for humanity, even at the expense of cities like Miami, ending up beneath the ocean due to rising sea level? We already know what the ideal climate is. It's one that we currently live in that won't bake us alive. And the same goes for the atmosphere. A little CO2 might be ok, but changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is also problematic. As noted above, increased CO2 dissolved in the ocean produces carbonic acid. This is harmful for marine ecosystems. We of course are dependent on fish for food, so it's not an area that we should willfully tamper with. Coral reefs are currently in decline, in part, for this reason, as an example.
@@logoschristianacademy6044great, this is perfect. So you think that the ideal CO2 concentration is between 600 and 700. So let's say 650. Currently, our atmospheric concentration is at about 420ppm and it's increasing at about 3 ppm per year. So by your standard of ideal, in about 70-80 years, we will have reached the ideal concentration. So what exactly is your plan for stopping CO2 increases in about 70-80 years once we've reached this ideal concentration?
@@logoschristianacademy6044 and CO2 rate of increase is accelerating too. So, 80 years to reach 650 is a fair estimate. So, what. You think we should all just sit around and not do anything for another 80 years until we reach the perfect 650ppm concentration? And then, that's when the topic will become important and then we should begin investing options to mitigate further increases? Nobody worry about marine life collapsing due to ocean acidification for another 80 years, everyone got it? Everyone needs to wait until we get into the ideal atmospheric conditions, then we can start talking about electric vehicles and deforestation, and wind turbines etc. But before then? Well, you guys are just alarmists. The Arctic ice cap? Ah it's ok, we didn't need that anyway. Forget the polar bears, they can swim to Canada, they'll be fine. Fish changing migratory patterns in the south China sea, what could go wrong? Crops that are climate sensitive? Ah it's ok, farmers in the Dakota's can just move up to Canada for fertile soil, it's fine. They won't mind us moving on. Oh and those people in Mexico? Well, if it gets too hot for them, they'll be fine, don't worry about it. Rising sea levels around Florida, much of which is already at sea level and suffers from flooding. In 80 years, thats when we can start talking about this. Anytime sooner? Well, you're just a pastor for sale.
Fellow Christian apologist / Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross has published an excellent multidisciplinary book on the topic: “Weathering Climate Change.” There’s a lot more involved than one might imagine; and as usual, politicians and celebrities are a poor source of accurate scientific information.
I love this video, and it's exactly the sort of thing Christians ought to be doing more of. I'm convinced that fear and stubbornness drives much of our intellectual suppression, which in turn keeps us from engaging in our contexts with wisdom and intention. I write about this kind of thing on my blog all the time. I'm very pro Christian critical thinking!
I am going out on a limb here and just going to risk it you know!! I just have this completely unscientific gut feeling that when I stand before Christ he isn’t going to ask why I didn’t do more about climate change. Gavin sounds like he is one of those folks that believe that human beings are fundamentally good. I need someone to do a whole video proving to me that there is scientific consensus. Who are all these scientists? I have heard that phrase a million times and I am just supposed to believe it?
Who are these scientists? The Geological Society of America, The Geological Society of London, The European Geosciences Union, The National Association of Geoscience Teachers, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, The American Institute of Physics, The Royal Society, The US National Academy of Sciences, among many many others.
@@jjoesmith331- went to the first one and read there position paper. Not altering my life based on people who think they know what CO2 levels were 3 million years ago. Maybe they should offer semester long classes where they teach the common man how they know that. Not buying that anyone knows what CO2 levels were 3 million years ago just because they measured it in ice. Science is about observation and no one observed anything 3 million years ago.
@@paulfrancis8118 ok, well don't ask for proof of scientific consensus if you are just going to ignore scientific consensus anyway. Don't blame the scientific community for your own lack of awareness of how the earth is known to be ancient. Nobody is obligated to educate you.
Love your videos, Dr. Ortlund. May I kindly suggest that you focus on your (impressive) areas of expertise? The climate change issue is a viper's nest of lies and distortions and very dark agendas. It's no area in which Christians need to or ought to "engage"
Living in the south, it's incredibly frustrating when the same people that deny climate change are the ones who think people shouldn't complain about working outside in 100°+ temperatures in the summer... 😞
I very much appreciate you making this video and being brave enough to post it. My intuition is that fear of "big government," i.e., the fear of ceding our individual freedoms in favor of a collective response lies at the heart of much US-style conservative opposition to public policy & regulatory responses to climate threat. To some extent, I understand this sentiment and share it. However, if we are for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," we need to acknowledge that the environmental conditions necessary for life are prerequisite to the opportunity for liberty and happiness. It therefore concerns me that We The People may no longer be capable of mounting a substantial collective response to any kind of collective threat, especially if that response requires shared sacrifice. If so, our instinct to choose liberty over life (when we could have both) makes us weaker as a nation, not stronger.
Mr Ortlund, at the 24:44 mark of this video, you claim you don’t know what will happen and that you’re not a scientist, then you say this is a very important matter practically in the same breath. Which is it? You spent over 20 minutes trying to convince me only to hedge your bet? Are you pulling a Pensees?
I came upon this video by chance. I am the city councillor in charge of sea defences in a very low lying UK city and am also owner of a small farm in Africa just north of the equator. In both roles I see the effects of climate change. The sea level is rising at an increasing rate, certainly faster than any time since records began. On the farm over the past couple of decades we have experienced longer and more damaging periods of drought. The rapidity of change without a corresponding natural cause forces the conclusion that this is man made. As a Christian I see arrogance as when people built the Tower of Babel. and ignorant inactivity as before the Flood. We, who are believers need to be prophets in our own generation and give a lead to our communities in addressing the causes of this growing , self induced problem, not least because it's effects will affect, more than any others, the poor of the Earth.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:25
Could you please be specific as to how you think that verse is germane to the topic? You might be implying that any good faith attempt at wise stewardship of the environment is idolatry, but I’d rather not assume that was your meaning unless you say so yourself.
@@gracenotes5379 I'm not at liberty to know which actions are truely wise stewardship of the environment, but there is definitely those that make climate activism their religion and moral foundation. It has become too convinent to convict alleged heretics. Any suspicion of the doctrines widely promoted can be seen as an enemy of the world.
Thank you for your insights Gavin. I’ve often been discouraged by the church’s response to climate change here in North America. I really appreciate you bringing up the connection with justice.
The rapid fire alarmism around (21:57) is mostly just false. The increase in wildfires is mostly due to an increase in arson. Droughts are no more severe than they have been in the past, and many semi-arid regions are greening because of the increased CO2 which reduces the water requirements of many plants. There are no more or more severe hurricanes than there have been in the past, if you look at the data. There is more damage dollar wise because there are more structures to be damaged. But hurricanes significantly decreased when Obama was president, probably because of geoengineering and creating clouds off the east coast of Africa, lowering Atlantic Ocean temperatures. Oceans are not 30% more acidic. They're fine. Corals are not (allegedly?) dying because the water levels are higher. They are allegedly going to die because the oceans will be slightly more acidic. It's sad when a climate alarmist like Gavin doesn't even understand the talking points he's spewing.
After Basham’s book was finally released, one of the earliest major responses came from former California pastor Gavin Ortlund, who now heads a ministry called Truth Unites in Tennessee. This was kind of odd because Ortlund is at best a minor figure in the book. Basham briefly discusses a video he did on climate change. She critiques it with facts and figures. Ortlund could have simply ignored what Basham wrote. Or he could have responded to her substantive criticisms of what he called the “consensus” view. He did neither. Instead, he went ballistic with one and then two videos charging Basham with all sorts of malfeasance in misrepresenting what he said. Although he spoke in his usual mellow and laid-back style, his actual accusations were strident and over the top. He accused her of “dishonesty,” “distortion,” “spin,” and “bearing false testimony.” As I have explained elsewhere, I think Basham was mostly accurate in what she wrote. I also think Ortlund seems oversensitive, too quick to express hurt and take offense. The most interesting thing to me is how Ortlund’s responses served to distract attention from the main claims made by Basham in her climate change chapter. I’m not alleging that this was Ortlund’s intention. But his overwrought response provided a convenient excuse for people to avoid grappling with Basham’s critique.
I am an evangelical Christian and a scientist in the UK. I and many other Christians here do not deny man-induced climate change, nor our duty to protect God's creation. Most of my Christian friends and colleagues are also old earthers. I think this definition of what evangelicals have to believe is thing of the US.
You contradict yourself. You say our duty is to protect God's Creation yet your friends refute God's Creation and instead believe in the atheistic old earth of billions of years. I pray one day you come to the Truth.
@@xenofonz7640 climate change is real. The earth is billions of years old. As Gavin says, about climate change, most scientists agree about old earth and there is no conspiracy. And, also as Gavin says, we generally don't like to say something is definitely true, but we are pretty sure about this. Regarding God creating the universe, this is something I strongly believe, based on the evidence, but it is not something I can easily prove. In fact, I could present all the evidence to someone, as I often have, and they can see exactly where I am coming from, but without revelation from God, they cannot believe. Faith is a gift. If you want to deny strong evidence and believe in a young earth (which I assume you do) then as far as I am concerned you are welcome to. This is not salvific. But please understand that it is possible to be evangelical, Bible believing an an old earther. And many of us in the UK are. And many people throughout history have been. By all means pray for me. Always happy to be prayed for. Thank you.
@@xenofonz7640 old earth is not incompatible with Scripture and God as a creator and it is naive to say otherwise. This is not an issue that should divide Christians though. I think young earth is very wrong, and not a little embarassing, but a better way for us is to accept we might be wrong - but that we are convinced of salvation through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection and focus on sharing the Good News
@@sphagbog That's OK, we can disagree on such matters while still being faithful followers of Jesus Christ. The main difference though between you and I is I don't doubt God's great power. God could have created the Universe in its current form in a split second but chose to do it in God's way.
@@xenofonz7640 that's great. Though I also don't doubt God's great power. I also believe He could have created the universe in its current form in a split second. However I don't think He did. Partly because I don't think He would deceive us with historical clues. But i might be wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on lots of things 😀
I appreciate your willingness to address this controversial subject! As someone who hasn't delved too deeply into these issues, I am wondering what you think of the Cornwall Alliance? Their founder and president is E. Calvin Beisner, a fairly well-known Christian apologist. While they take creation stewardship seriously, they also seem to be more critical towards the claims of modern manmade climate change. So I would be curious to know your thoughts about this organization and their landmark documents.
Really enjoyed this video, Gavin!! I’m always encouraged and challenged by your winsome approach and your search for truth coupled with humility. Thanks for your time and effort into this ministry - it’s such a blessing!
Really appreciate this Gavin, I agree that most evangelicals (and people in general) uncritically form their opinions on this issue via politics and culture. I agree it should be talked about and studied more, we all want a cleaner healthier climate. -One reason I sympathize with so called "climate skeptics" is that the political context in which this is brought up often brings with it hyper-sensational alarmism met with either no solutions or solutions that seem completely preposterous or unhelpful (AOC's green new deal) comes to mind to be specific. -I recommend looking into Bjorn Lomborg's work on this issue. He has lots of videos and a couple books on the issue 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' is one... He seems to have a very balance take between alarmism, skepticism, and practical solutions. -Another point worth bringing up as Christians is God's sovereignty. Christians should not despair about the climate in the way that popular media figures often do. Doesn't mean we shouldn't address the problem as best we can, but like you said, despair is not warranted by the Christian
I agree with this sentiment. As Christians we're certainly called to steward the environment well, but so many of the "solutions" proposed are extremely economically impactful to the middle and lower classes disproportionately as well as anti-human in sentiment. I worry initiation of some of these policies will be a slippery slope to more nefarious initiatives.
@@matthew7491 Which "solutions" are you thinking about? My experience of the environmentalist movement is that they tend to be concerned about the impact on poorer people (who will be the most affected by the impacts of climate change). That's why they tend to focus on more systematic changes rather than quick technological fixes. Which is also why they tend towards left-wing views on economic issues (and is a factor causing the Republican Party -- who are, by global standards, right-wing extremists on economics - has been so strongly opposed to taking action on the issue).
@@stephengray1344 Carbon taxes, gas taxes, regulations making ownership of older cars more expensive (SMOG in California as an example), just to name a few. Not to mention regulations on manufacturing where the costs get passed down. Namely solutions that target individuals.
Thank you for this thoughtful engagement with CC, Gavin! Really hopeful your video will be a catalyst for folks in evangelical spaces to be talking more about this massive topic. Excellent example of the evangelical unbundling of topics from their long-held ideological tribes and examined in a fresh way thru a biblical lens.
People seem to have really polarised feelings about this even here on the comment section.. I'm not from the States and don't see climate change as a left/right issue but it is so common sensely obvious where I live that it's amazing to me that people "don't believe in it". Maybe we should try to find more fruitful approaches? I found Gavins input reasonable. It should not be either close eyes entirely or go to "neomarxist" ways.. There should be a third option. See the thing and invent good, creative solutions, that should be possible. That's what Gavin proposes here as I hear it. I definitely don't find it reasoned to make him as an example in that kind of a book. I listened to Megans interview in babylon bee and was displeased. She had bashing "mean girls" style and bundled up all kinds of things. She brought up her reasons to accuse Gavin: she want's to eat her beef and cool her house with a good conscience! Now, is that a godly reason to throw brother under a train? Where as I believe that she can have some really important observations about other things and should not be overlooked, the way we talk about things is important. To me her taking Gavin as an example diminishes her reliability. There can how ever be some truth ih her other observations and they should be examined carefully but in a godly manner. It's really important how christians communicate things, disagreeing is ok but not by what ever means.
@@CDK008-hm3ue True science points to a solar system wide, accelerated radioactive decay heat driven catastrophe in the recent past, including massive thermal expansion cracks on the moon and Mars, the total mantle overturn of Venus and Earth, including a global flood on Earth.
I’m only listening due to Ms. Basham’s book. I’m going to check out her book and see your latest videos again to see what you were defending yourself against. But I must say, I’m 18 minutes into this video and you have not been very kind to skeptics and unbelievers in your opinion.
Thanks for posting this. It took guts. I'm interested if you've listened to any of Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change. If so, I'd be interested in your opinion. He seems to take a much more leveled and sensible approach of what we should focus on... Things that actually might help, especially when it comes to mitigating the consequences. Unfortunately, that's not what the bad actors are focusing on. They're using it to promote their own agenda, which isn't what's best for the planet. In all this, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary because we're living in a world blinded by sin and corrupt motivations. At the same time we need to recognize our own propensities toward sin and not let our skepticism blind us to what is really happening. God knows (thank God!). I pray for clear heads to prevail on this issue.
Another great video. Appreciate that you tackle difficult issues and with such a careful and thoughtful style - and yes hopeful too. This topic is important and urgent and we should be talking about it. You are providing a model for having difficult conversations at a time when the temptation is to avoid having them because of the level of anger and vitriol that often follow. You are doing important work, Gavin.
Yes Christians should not shy away from this. Well if you are so concerned about man-made climate change then you better tell China, India, Japan and many other countries to stop building in total hundreds of new coal fire power stations. In any case mankind only pumps a tiny fraction of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to what nature does. Your trust in climate science, which is fake is actually very sad. As a scientist I've studied it for over 20 years and I can tell you that there are many other scientists who disagree with the IPCC, which is a UN funded fraud. The push to reduce CO2 emissions is one of the biggest frauds ever constructed by man. Apart from being self-destructive to a nation as being shown in Europe, the move to using solar farms, wind farms, electric vehicles and associated batteries is also one of the most environmentally destructive acts ever conducted by mankind. Already they are causing massive disposal issues when they have to be manufactured and eventually replaced. If one were to believe in the climate science then the obvious solution is nuclear power. It's the only non-CO2 emitting power source we have that provides reliable power round the clock. If you want to continue to destroy a nation then by all means push for so called Green energy. BTW, Europe is now looking towards going back to nuclear energy and other sources sources of fossil fuels now that Russia is at risk of shutting off the supply of gas and oil to Europe. We have much bigger issues to deal with than climate change. One of them is God's wrath during/after the Tribulation. It's all in the Bible. Stick to what you know best; the Gospel.
Why? I don't agree with Gavin on climate change but is he really a "Shepherd for Sale?" Putting his name in a book with a title like that is appalling. Who's paying him off?
Question. When Jesus sent his apostles out into the world, did he ever tell them to give a message about the earth preservation? What about Paul, what was his mission? In Paul's letters to the churches did he ever admonish them for not caring for the planet? What about Revelation? Surely John wrote about what the spirit said to the churches and why they should repent for not being good stewards of the planet. The message Christians must give to the people of this world is this. That mankind dies because of sin and the earth groans like a woman in labour because the sin has caused the earth to be cursed. The only salvation man has is Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the whole world, once for all. Furthermore, that the earth and its future is not something that we need to focus on. The two beasts are going to be in power soon, followed by the kingdom coming and 1000 years of Jesus ruling the world. Then there will be a new heaven and new earth. This is God's plan and His will, and if we are in Christ it will be our future.
I keep hearing different views on this and I have some doubts about your side on climate change itself. But You CLEARLY state that we should discuss this issue without being disrespectful, and I would also say without misrepresenting each other which is unfortunately what Megan Basham did. She may have thought that she was representing you correctly but she wasn't careful enough and should have known better that to take three word from one place in the video and ram them together with four word in another part. In all that I have watched of your videos you are always kind and respectful and I find you to be an excellent example of how Christians should relate to each other even when we disagree. I recently saw an excellent discussion on the CZcams channel "Trinity Radio" where Braxton Hunter moderated a discussion where you were defended by Chris Date and Josh Klein was supporting somewhat Megan Basham and they came to a pretty decent understanding. Maybe Braxton hunter and Trinity Radio would be a good forum for you and Megan to have a good discussion and we could get this whole thing sorted out.
For years, this has been my sentiment, which is quickly squashed by both fellow Christians and spiritual leaders. You are the first conservative Christian who has given my views and frustrations a voice and has expressed every one of my concerns. Why is it that the same sola scriptura Christians that hold theology so dear, seem to also be dismissive of every scriptural reference to our mandate to care for this earth?! I agree that it is also a way in which we love our neighbor as ourselves. Having said that, don't you think that it's hard to sift through the evidence and figure out what's true versus what's being hyped up by those with a political agenda? I think that is why, as frustrated as I am about the nonchalance of this issue, I'm also perplexed about how to embrace this issue with clarity. Do you see my dilemma?
Agreed that most lay people can’t wrestle with the raw academic literature, but what do you suppose is the motivation that would drive an overhyped political response from the left? Where is the political advantage in promoting shared sacrifice, prudence and delayed gratification in a society that rewards those who promise bread and circuses ? Climate scientists may want more research dollars from the public purse, but the majority is not so foolish as to abandon evidence-based methods to that end (some painful exceptions not withstanding).
I agree that it is very hard to know what is true and what is not. I think it is the hardest part of living in the age of the internet and social media. We can all disagree about the specifics of climate change effects, but still agree that we need to improve our environment and care about the effects we have on the earth. We need to listen with an open heart to both sides
This comment is not to disagree with the video's premise, but to raise concern about the uncritical way you depict "science" at around minute 17:00 in the video. While it is true that the CONCEPT of science as a discipline is build on slow, methodical, conservative study, the FIELD of science, as with any other longtime profession and/or field, is subject to "the human element". As we see with anything, a manmade thing is only as good as it's operators. And I think it is evident through the operators of science that the structure of science as a whole has fallen victim to mass amounts of human bias, pride, and ideological shifts. I am not necessarily saying there is a nefarious plot, but I think a reasonable picture of science is that the likelihood that a move toward mass consensus can be fueled by sociopolitical movements is valid. It isn't conspiratorial, most things in the world aren't. But "group-think" at work in this field made up of humans is just as valid an explanation. Science is a field made of large institutions, managing billions of research dollars. The integrity of the scientific process is not as in tact as you pain the picture to be. As with something like big-pharma, or the medical industry. Doctors aren't nefarious, but when large institutions filled with billions of someone else's dollars get involved in fields it doesn't necessarily hold up well. I am not saying Global Warming isn't real. I don't actually think that. But I do think a skeptical eye toward the scientific community would be somewhat wise, as the initial integrity of the scientific process I do not believe is as intact as some would believe. There are most definitely individuals with integrity, but I am more referring to the system as a whole.
I couldn't disagree more with you dr Gavin. Still, you asked to sit down and talk, with respect and wisdom, so I'm willing to do that. Hopefully you are too. Let's dig into what you've said here. 3:15 "There's this clear charge of stewardship over creation." It should go without saying, that Jesus's commissions and New Testament guidelines left to us by the apostles are much more current and relevant to us than Old Testament commandments, especially those given to men even before even Noah's covenant. Every covenant has context which makes its commandments relevant. I mean, multiplying is a part of the very same verse that talks about stewardship. But you just said, in this very video, that we should think about how many people should be inhabiting the Earth rationally - in other words, you wouldn't agree that it is still one of our core responsibilities to just have as many children as possible to literally populate the Earth. That's clearly already been done. I and many other Christians would also say that man's dominion over earth is also something that came into past. I'm not saying we should just exploit and pollute the Earth as we please - but multiplying and dominating the Earth was a commandment given to first humans so that our species would become a dominant force in the world, and it has - it's hardly connected to the massive Climate Change Activist movement we see today. A bit of a stretch I'd say. Evangelizing and saving souls of people who are about to go to hell is WAY more important for us today. This Earth isn't something we'll be living on forever - personally, or as a species. It's a temporary place on a way to infinite Kingdom of God. If there's ever a choice between taking care for God's Kingdom and this Earth - we shouldn't hesitate for a second. One is infinitely more important, and yet, horribly neglected when compared to massive movements such as economic activism. Almost every major western company in the world is already engaged on many levels into economic activism. I wonder if we as Christians should actually invest our time to add to that, or perhaps, should we focus on a far more important task, that nobody but Christians is willing to do for us, hmmm? And most of all: Lord is coming -MARANATHA, we pray he comes SOON - to destroy this Earth and create a new one. It's his role to renew the Earth. It was never given to us as a primary task in the first place. "Let the dead bury the dead". We have a lot more important things to do. That's my opinion and I think it's absolutely Biblical. But let's keep looking at the issue. 3:20 "Love your neighbor, that implies how we think about future generations" That's another example of stretching the Scripture to fit a narrative. In the context, loving your neighbor means exactly that - loving people around you. It's not our primary job to provide physical goods or qualities for future generations - it's Gods. Once again - God's Kingdom over any and all plans we have for this life and this Earth, which are all temporary and to be soon swiped aside. New Testament writers very strictly encourage people to NOT think too far ahead because of that. Matthew 6:34 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” - Literally an opposite to dedicating your life to preserving the future of our Earth. Jacob 4 :15 "Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow let’s go into this city and spend a year there, trade, and make a profit.” Yet you don’t know what your life will be like tomorrow. For what is your life? For you are a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. For you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will both live, and do this or that.” But now you glory in your boasting. All such boasting is evil. To him therefore who knows to do good and doesn’t do it, to him it is sin." Acts 4:34-35 "For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." 4:15 "Just how much Scripture teaches God cares about animas" Bingo. GOD cares about animals. All of the examples you gave point out to God taking care of them, not humans. (Matthew 6:26: Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your HEAVENLY FATHER feeds them) Is it our primary job to care about them? No. GOD will provide for animals. We, Christians, have to first and foremost take care of the Gospel being shared to every human on this earth while trying to humbly live out our lives in service to God and his kingdom. NOT in the service to animals or the planet that is soon to be discarded by him. Once again, I'm not saying that's an open invitation to selfishly slaughter entire species off the face of the Earth either - but making it Christian's obligation is just going too far. That's just not what the Bible says. 8:00 "Basic science behind Climate Change makes a lot of sense" I'm sorry dr Gavin, but that's just not true. YES, the global temperature is rising. But like you've noticed yourself, temperatures on the globe are rising and falling over the course of our history, so that's hardly an argument for global activism against it. You're saying that the reason it's dangerous this time around is because in the past, it was rising a lot slower. But that's just according to scientific models, recreation of the past. We do not KNOW if it was rising slower in the past. We assume it did based on what we see in the ground. When we look at the past, we can never say we know anything for sure. All we have is theories about how do we interpret what we find. This comes down to what you've said about science in general - the majority consensus thing. Yes, it's true that majority consensus of scientists agrees that the temperature today is rising faster than it did in the past, and that it rises too fast and is therefore dangerous. But you are missing a very important detail in your defense for modern science. Modern science is agenda-driven. There's majority consensus today that homosexual behavior is natural, healthy and is determined upon birth, and not by any additional factors. There's majority consensus that a baby in the womb is not a human yet. There was, in the past, majority consensus that black man is less evolved than white man. They used to kill aborigines to show their skulls off in museums as half-apes you know. Scientists are all people. They have their agendas, and vast majority of modern science is controlled by liberals around the whole western world. The amount of money they get to support ecological activism from their governments in itself makes them completely non-credible. If a university employs 20 eco activists and gains 10 million dollars a year for preaching about eco activism, how do you suppose they would treat a discovery that would put some shade on these theories about man-made climate change? Obviously, they would instantly discard it. The reason why there's majority consensus that on all these things is politics and money. 10:00 "Human caused climate-change is a really big problem" And here were are at the end of the line. I've noticed here you didn't give any data at all. Why is that? You were able to quickly provide a graph that proves temperatures are rising globally - but nobody disputes that. There is a major dispute however when it comes to the fact that humans actually are to blame for this, and not natural processes. Once again, you'll just say that's a majority consensus by "science" but since sconce is founded by their governments to say exactly that, so that the money could flow from tax dollars to eco activists and their programs in billons every year, once again, I dare to say that's not a proof of any kind. There IS NO DATA out there that you can give me or anyone, that would prove that humans are the primary cause, or even a notable cause of temperatures rising today. To the contrary. Scientists constantly and consistently FAIL to prove that temperatures rising at the rate they do now provide danger to the planet. 30 years ago they told us we'll be under water by the year 2000. My summary would be this: 1. It's not a primary obligation of Christians to invest their time, strength and resources to save the planet or animals or future generations. GOD is the one who gives his promise throughout Scripture that he will take care of those things. There's no reason to oppose people who care about such things, but the world is invested in that a great deal, and we, Christians, should focus on a lot more important stuff like the Gospel and guiding believers - a work to be done, that the world won't touch with a stick. 2. Modern science has agendas and is engaged with liberal politics. A lot of things that are "majority consensus" can be, and likely are factually wrong, like they've been in the past many times. Exploring other options than modern science isn't wrong, it's actually necessary to have a full view on many things, and Climate Change is no exception. 3. There are DANGERS to climate change activism that you didn't mention dr Gavin. Scripture provides a lot of very important obligations for us, and climate change activism isn't one of them. People who warp their whole lives around fear for Earth often lose the sight of God's Kingdom and lose sight of what the true war is really about. I know little Christians who care deeply about sharing the Gospel. I know plenty who bought into Climate Change activism and spend most of their day making sure they do not produce unnecessary waste and spend 10 times the money on solar panels or paper accessories than they give to missionaries. That's my experience.
Your comment basically reduces to, "God will take care of it." But what if He won't? Are you going to take such a risk? We do not live in heaven, we live in a fallen, separated state. I don't think it's helpful to just say that God will take care of it and then not doing anything ourselves. This mindset is the same as the people who refuse to take their children to the hospital and just pray for them instead. God isn't our personal servant that will do everything we want. Sure, I agree that climate activism isn't the main goal and purpose for humanity, but why is it problematic to focus on many things, while having the main focus on God still?
@@x-popone6817 "Your comment basically reduces to, "God will take care of it." Well, I'd say it would be more fair to include at least one or two more thoughts I've put in there, like Christians having simply much more important obligations that nobody else can do in their stead, for example. "Are you going to take such a risk? We do not live in heaven, we live in a fallen, separated state. I don't think it's helpful to just say that God will take care of it and then not doing anything ourselves" How is giving away ANY task to God a risk? God can do anything. More then that, it's SCRIPTURE that encourages giving future troubles to God, especially caring for nature, and instead focusing on living present life for God and his Kingdom. It's not my idea. If Bible encourages it, why wouldn't it be a good to do just that? "This mindset is the same as the people who refuse to take their children to the hospital and just pray for them instead." But God never said that Christians should pray for their children instead of taking them to hospital. The Bible encourages both prayer for the sick, AND the use of medicine. Heck, Bible even includes TRAINING for physicians in the old testament and countless injunctions for keeping personal hygiene. Bible is pro-medicine all the way through. But it is not pro-eco activism. I encourage you to find any actual passages that directly support it or encourage it. Like I motioned in my original comment above, we have to stretch the Bible waaaaay out of its original context to find and scraps for that agenda. I mean how far do you have to dig to find a commandment that would encourage fighting deforestation from passages like "love your neighbor". "God isn't our personal servant that will do everything we want." Yes, it's the other way around. It's our job to be God's faithful servants. So when he says to stick to the present rather than worrying about the future of a doomed world and focus on the saving souls, we should do just that. "Sure, I agree that climate activism isn't the main goal and purpose for humanity, but why is it problematic to focus on many things, while having the main focus on God still?" Like I said, I have no issues with eco-activism in itself, it's certainly nothing bad to care about clean air and planting new trees and so on. Outside of Christianity and even as a Christian I think you can totally do non-religious things in your spare time. A hobby isn't a sin, and when it's hobby that benefits everyone around, all the better. However, it's also not fair to DEMAND from Christians to involved, or even interested in that either. And that's the tone of videos like this one from Dr. Ortlund. That we are OBLIGATED to do this and that based on passages like such and such. And I'm just point out, that its not true. The Bible points in another direction. Focus on the today, because tomorrow, God may just as well call you to heaven, and ask you how did you do with your work for the Kingdom. He'll ask for the return he's invested in you on his gold talents. He won't be impressed by how many plastic bags you did or didn't use for sure. The only thing Jesus ever did for environment was pollute a lake by sending a herd of pigs into it and pollute some air by killing a perfectly good fig tree just to make a point. People need to stop pretending eco-activism is somewhere hidden in the Bible, because it really just isn't. In the Biblical worldview, the world exist FOR humans. Not humans for the world. NEVER the other way around. Earth is not our home. It's a temporary battlefield for the war against Satan that is going to end in its destruction sooner or later, safeguarding it with your life is in the grand scheme of things just a waste of time. And last but not least, I do not think encouraging eco-activism to Christians, even as a hobby, is anything helpful, because it never ends as a hobby. The lobby for eco-activism is so powerful and the message so wide-spread everywhere that Christians who get involved are getting completely absorbed by it, and completely set their core Christian responsibilities aside. But that's just my observation. I suppose there are Christians out there who do their fair share for the environment and also are very dedicated missionaries who live out their daily lives full of Holy Spirit. But are you? Do you pray every day? Do you walk daily with the Spirit, free from daily enslavement to serious sin, for example, pornography? Do you read Scripture every day? Do you share the Gospel regularly or serve in some other way in your Church that allows others to share the Gospel effectively? Are you a faithful husband or wife, or at least do you plan to be, and if so, do you have a rough idea how much time and effort it takes to be one? Are you a hard working employee or a hard working student? How many meaningful relationships with valuable people in your life do you have? Because you know, all of these things are very strongly, plainly and directly taught in Scripture, as things that should be in the very center of your life. I suppose if you do have all of those things in order, I'd say feel free to be involved in eco-activism or anything else that might take your heart in some other direction. You'll manage. But if you are seriously struggling with those, I'd just say - focus on that first. Our planet is set for Apocalypse soon, and your two hands won't make much difference. Maybe leave it to politicians who can can easily cut the pollution in half with a new regulation and focus on what really matters in your vicinity.
Gavin what you said about less frequent and concentrated rainfall is absolutely correct. Last week in Kerala, India there was a massive landslide that occured as a result of concentrated rainfall, which has been occuring for some years,, more than 500 people died.
A single event doesn't constitute climate. If you think CO2 is causing climate change (I do not) then India and China are going to have to cut back on coal-burning for power. The USA/EU reductions cannot begin to compare with the increases in those two countries. I think India should still use whatever is the most economic means to generate power and learn to build infrastructure in ways that are more resilient - and that is going to require continued economic development which will require coal burning and reduced institutional corruption.
@@l-cornelius-dol what you said is absolutely correct, but not in this context, reliable infrastructure may protect against earthquakes but not agsinst landslides. But measures to prevent such events can be taken, reducing building permits, even though may come at a cost. Kerala is already densely populated and it has a lot of hilly areas, it is impossible to move people from their properties. Also in India we have a unique problem, people cannot easily migrate because people speak different languages in each state. Majority of the people are small business owners or farmers, not higher uneducated, there is no real economic benefit for migrating. Migration within the country comes at a significant cost of the quality of living unless they have a high paying job.
If you want to hear thoughtful opposition to the "scientific consensus" I would listen to Dr. Willie Soon or Christopher Monckton. I really think as christians we need to be careful about how we come to our positions. I think it is best to openly hear both sides. I have a concern with how politicized this topic has become, and the solutions proposed are very impractical. Nuclear energy seems to be the best way to reduce emissions, and yet still it does not get near the attention as solar and wind. Note: the reason I put scientific consensus in quotation marks is because the consensus is that humans contribute to green house gas emissions. The debate is not that, it is what percentage of warming are people responsible for, is climate change harmful, and what can we do to lower emissions if needed. There are environmental issues that we should care about more than climate change in my opinion. For instance, windmills killing rare birds to name just one. Last thing I'll say is that the famous physicist Freeman Dyson is on record saying that global warming is an overall good thing because it is greening the planet due to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is debate about precisely how much human activity contributes, but the consensus is that we are the primary cause. There is debate about the level of harm it will cause (which is largely a function of the uncertainty about how quickly we can/will reduce carbon emissions), but the consensus is very clearly that the net effect will be harmful. There is debate about the best way to lower carbon emissions, but the consensus is that we do need to do so. Studies of wind turbines (which are not the same thing as windmills) have shown that reductions in bird populations are primarily due to disruption during construction. And even the largest estimates of the number of birds killed by wind turbines are less than the estimates of the number of birds killed by flying into a glass window. And climate change is generally thought to be one of the main reasons for the current mass extinction that is currently being observed by naturalists.
@@stephengray1344 Have you looked into the sun's role on climate change? I only listed the wind turbines because it is an example of a downside in building massive wind farms. I don't know where you are getting the consensus that the net effect will be harmful. Even if it's a majority, that doesn't make it true. There are many who are skeptical of the IPCC, from what I know if you doubled the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere you will get 2-2.5 degrees of warming. The globe has been warming since the little ice age a few centuries ago. Nothing catastrophic has happened, the globe has become noticeably greener. They can tell by satellites. The US power grids already has enough problems, solar and wind are too unreliable to become a significant contribution year round. Also look at Germany gives us a warning of what happens when you focus all your as attention to solar and wind to try to reach net zero. Their energy prices are significantly higher than the surrounding countries and their carbon emissions have not decreased as much as other countries. Increasing energy prices hurts the poor, which is why we shouldn't dogmatically follow the consensus. There are plenty examples in history of when the scientific "consensus" was wrong
@@gaberau2479 From what I've read on the sun's role in climate change, there's very little evidence that it's a significant issue. The main impact is the 11-year solar cycle, and if that was the main cause then we'd have seen falling temperatures between about 2000 and 2008. I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's not consensus that it will be harmful. The IPCC reports pretty much are the consensus view on the issue, and they absolutely predict net negative consequences - even on the most optimistic scenarios. The "Little Ice Age" was a regional climatic change (mostly confined to Europe), rather than a global one. I've not heard any claims about the Earth getting greener? How does this square with the well-established evidence of deforestation and desertification? All types of electricity have some unreliability. Solar and wind are predictably unreliable (i.e. we can tell when they are going to fail in advance), and well-connected electrical grids (especially using newer smartgrid technology) means that failures in one area can be compensated for by generation in another. The issues with Germany are not the result of trying to reach net zero, they are the result of shutting down all their nuclear plants at once after Fukushima, and replacing them with coal. The fact remains that in most energy markets the cheapest form of electricity is either wind or coal. Whilst it's theoretically possible that the scientific consensus is wrong, it is extremely unlikely on the basic reality of global warming. We have proven way beyond reasonable doubt that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases. We have good evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide has gone from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution to over 400ppm today. The only possible mechanism for this change that we are aware of is the burning of fossil fuels. And that this is the cause is attested by measurements of carbon-14. Even if the more technical evidence proved to be wrong, the chances of what I've outlined in this paragraph being wrong are minuscule.
@@stephengray1344 If you look at the earth's history, 400ppm is relatively low for all time. What do you think of people like Freeman Dyson, someone who has retired and has no conflicts of interest saying that man emitted CO2 has been a net positive on the overall environment. CO2 makes up 3% of the green house gas effect. 90% is water vapor. The sun has many events that have been shown to correlate with climate. Wind and Solar is not cheaper in the developing world which is the reason why coal plants are still being built. Only with government subsidies is that the case. Weather is not predictable far out. IPCC operates based on models that are not good at predicting the future. Computers have gotten better, but the algorithms used to predict climate are still flawed because they do not take into account the many variables. Climate is too complex to create predictions using those models. Similar to economic models.
@@gaberau2479 The issue is less the temperature level, but more the rate of change. Previous changes in global average temperature took place over thousands of years, this one is taking place over a few decades. Dyson is on record as saying that he didn't care that much about the issue, and that he wasn't an expert. So I'm not sure that I care that much about his opinion, compared to that of the scientists who have specialised in studying the climate. Yes, there are other greenhouse gases, and the solar cycle has an effect on the climate, but there's no evidence of the kind of changes in either that could cause the observed change in temperature. The cheapness of wind and solar has nothing to do with government subsidies, and everything to do with the fact that ongoing costs are minimal, and upfront. I'm not clear which countries you consider developing, but there are some South American countries for whom energy is practically free for half the year because of the high amount of renewables. If we want to bring more energy to developing countries, the best way would to use foreign aid budgets to invest in renewables, and in training locals to maintain them, since then we aren't setting them up to have to buy in oil, gas, or coal. Yes, climate is complex, but the long-term climate patterns are much easier to model than the chaotic day-to-day changes in weather. And the early climate models have proven broadly accurate so far.
One of the largest problems in Christianity today is the reconciliation of theology and science. It seems quite far now from the days of Thomas Aquinas who described Theology as the queen of the sciences, and yet, here we are. I think that despite the good points you brought forth here, it would serve to have a closer look at the Christian opposition to science. An illustration for my point: I have an ex-girlfriend whose father was vehemently opposed to various things ending in -ology, and described them as in opposition to God. He was also abusive, and it ended up that as my ex pursued her dream of becoming an anthropologist, she also turned her back on her faith. Now, there's a lot in play there, but her father is an example of the kind of Christian who objects to science as we know it. The anti-science sentiment is strong within Christianity. We could look no farther than the pseudo-scientific ideas of Flat Earth, but we could also consider the ways in which people cling to Young Earth Creationism as the absolute way in which God created the universe. For my part, I do count myself as a scientific skeptic, if only because I distrust the emphasis people place on science with respect to how settled it is. Frank Turek of Cross Examined has often said, "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do." I distrust whether the scientists have truthfully presented the data for others to verify their results, independent on any biases they may harbor. So, I suppose my skepticism is based on a reservation of judgment. One reason for the net negative aspects of climate change that I'd considered has to do with the waning of the Church that we see, and connect its straying to the change we're seeing. Climate change would therefore be connected to God's Justice; his punishment of the wicked and his desire for his people to turn from their sin and return to him. Another reason I'd thought of, based on your video, is based on your point on the Industrial Revolution. I could suppose that the spirit of Revolution was bent toward mastery as opposed to stewardship. That reminded me of the difference between Adonai and Ba'al. Both terms have overlapping meanings, but the contextual connotations are what drive the two apart. Ba'al is a master of slaves; Adonai is a master of government. Today is Saturday; from me to you, Shabbat shalom.
Great video. You’ve convinced me that climate change it is something to consider more thoughtfully as opposed to brushing it aside. God bless you and thank you for the work.
Suppose that we hold climate change as an undebatable reality we are facing here on earth, the next real question should then be whether the future catastrophic results are avoidable. Suppose that we can reach the so called "net-zero" emissions, is this phenomenon still reversible? Or will all of our efforts to undo it never be enough? I think this is also why the Gospel is our only hope for the future of our humanity.
@N/A what happen to the complete melting of the ice caps? Weren’t cities suppose to be drowned out from rising oceans? All the models are complete fabrication. I left another comment on here on about the “Club of room” which is the think tank that came up with “anthropomorphic global warming” as the crisis to unite all peoples of the earth. You are naive dude all life in earth is carbon based so when Bill gates says this has to go to zero that means that we are the target! You have to decrease the human population to get zero carbon emission! I love carbon! Trees need carbon! If I could release more clean carbon I would! We need to do the opposite more carbon! I love carbon! Gods favorite molecule because it is cornerstone for life!
@N/A again you’re naive and in a dooms day cult. Al Gore said in his movie “An inconvenient truth” that the ice caps would completely melted and Manhattan would be under water by 2013! Robert Malthus who started all this human caused doomsday stuff was wrong about food shortages and resources running out too. The ice caps have actually grown since the 2010’s but none of that even matters. Look dude it sounds like you probably have autism so I know you’re all worked up but you need to repent from your scientism cult and be a man and trust God and do your best to pray for discernment.
Who else is here after the “Shepards for Sale” controversy.
Yep 👍
@@gi169Hello Gil!! We always keep meeting in the same places! I'm thankful for you bro!!
@@kladies3021
😅🤣😂 You came to get the skinny... God bless sister...
Lol, CZcams recommended this on my feed.
@@gi169 🤣😂😭 Two minds definitely think alike! I thought I'd research the topic and see what is being said. Thank-you, Gil God bless you as well my friend!
About forest fires, I live in rural N California and it doesn’t matter if we have drought or rain, there is danger every year now and that’s due to Poor Forest Management, NOT warmer temps or climate change
Exactly! I’m in Canada and it’s the same here. Jasper just burnt down and it’s directly linked to poor forest management.
Exactly, it's the inability of our government to do proper forest management, something our predecessors seemed to have a better grasp on
The climate change cultus is constantly being used by our public officials to make excuses for their failures. This issue is much bigger than “the science” and thus it must be discussed more concisely and with humility no matter what your opinion.
This is basically the same situation in large areas of Australia. The irony is that I find conservatives unwilling to recognise we've done a worse job of managing bushland than indigenous folk did for a very long time but progressive types attributing these dangerous fires to climate change when there's tangible things we could do on the ground to mitigate fire risk. Maybe we could all just agree that fire is a perennial problem here(always has been and our ecology bears the proof of this)and land management has to be a priority regardless of anything else.
Also cheers to the fact that we have personnel crossing the Pacific both ways to be in firefighting both here and in the States when things get out of hand. Glad that sort of common sense win-win is happening at least.
@@sarahd5341and weather warfare/geoengineering
Anyone heard of "manufactured consensus?" It's the "consensus" you get when you push out the qualified dissenters out of the conversation. This is occurring in diverse fields including climate science, medicine, etc. Are you not aware of this? This occurred on an industrial scale during covid and has been occurring in climate science.
And it's been happening for a long time before as well with things like homosexuality, guns, etc. You are spot on.
As a meteorologist I can tell you that the “consensus” is a lie.
What is the best place to see the works of the "qualified dissenters"? Genuinely asking.
@@bobthrasher8226 and we all might be old enough to remember when they told us scientists all agreed unborn babies weren’t people
@@American_Fugitive Not if someone on TV says it is a consensus. LOL
Dr. Ortlund, As much as I appreciate your channel, I think you're missing the obvious: most conservatives in the USA reject the "climate change" narrative for many reasons; some intuitive, some science-based.
Several issues (if anything, please read the last two points):
1. The planet earth is *not* a closed system. There is no way to block gasses from escaping or entering the planet, nor can scientists block other heat-inducing factors from entering or escaping the planet. This would have to happen in order to do a definitive test as to the effect of CO2 (or any) gasses. So any time scientific bodies (like the IPCC) get together to discuss such matters, they're talking about opinions, and models and data points. They're not talking about empirical test results.
2. All of the scary climate-change models of the past ~40 years have failed in their projections. All of them! Am I the only one that remembers that the 70s scare was 'global freezing', then in the 90s, it was 'global warming' and now it's 'global climate change'? Regardless of the data points used to bolster any scientist's opinion, this is not empirical science. It is guessing at best, scaremongering at worst. (and usually it's scaremongering)
3. The same scientists warning of "climate change" will readily admit that the planet has changed radically multiple times over the past million years. It is then the duty of the scientist to *prove* (not speculate) that the changes we're seeing today are man-made and not the planet doing what the planet, according to them, has always done. And the only way to do this is to isolate all discrete planet-warming factors (separate man-made planet-warming factors from naturally occurring planet-warming factors) and test them independently. This has not been done by any agency anywhere for one simple reason: it can NOT be done. Because to do so, you need a closed system. (See point #1)
4. The politicians bellyaching the most about climate change are consistently the most hypocritical. Not only in their private lives and personal consumption of energy, but also in their steadfast refusal to push for the cleanest form of energy: nuclear.
5. The nations most concerned about climate change steadfastly refuse to do anything about the nations spewing the most toxins into the environment. Why the hypocrisy? Let's be frank: If one cannot answer this question, then it proves they are not really interested in real solutions, and they are not qualified to discuss solutions. There is no point taking the USA to task (with our ~11% super-clean contribution) while ignoring countries that spew toxins with reckless abandon. (China alone creates more global-warming toxins than all developed nations COMBINED! ). Add in the rest of these Asian countries (India, etc), and these nations create more than 85% of all the toxins that allegedly contribute to climate change. Forcing the USA to go from 11% to 10% (a massive 10% reduction - which will take decades and trillions of dollars) while China goes from 27% to 40% ..dittos for India and all the other Asian countries) will do no one any good, and cause irreparable harm in the process, spending trillions for not one iota of progress).
6. All the nations that have put their shoulders behind climate-change measures have seen their economy crater, with their poor being hardest hit. Don't be fooled: This is by design.
7. Almost all of the measures supposedly aimed at reducing climate change have the net result of contravening the Creation Mandate. Do you think satan is aware of this? (I have seen this first-hand in my work in multiple third-world countries)
Rest assured: satan has a vested interest in how we handle the environment. He has a vested interest in seeing to it that people are fooled by what is good for humans and what is good for the environment. While we're in the process of following the Creation Mandate, let's spend some time trying to figure out his strategy too, because rest assured, he has a counterfeit creation mandate. (When we do, we'll be closer to understanding why governmental funding keeps IPCC scientists singing the same tune, and why there are a few notable scientists calling their bluff, insisting they were misquoted by the IPCC ...but don't want to raise a big stink about it.)
Lastly, let's let wisdom be judged by her **actual** children, not her promised children (ie, let's look at the countries that are really practicing what they preach about climate change and ask ourselves if they're better off with their climate-change measures)
[I'm a network engineer, so I collect and analyze data on a regular basis. I've also helped design and install solar-powered solutions and off-grid homes powered 100% by solar]
Carbon dioxide doesn't just miraculously enter earths atmosphere from space. And carbon dioxide doesn't miraculously just leave earths atmosphere either. Similar to how people don't just fly off the planet and disappear, there's a thing called gravity that keeps us here. Same with our atmosphere.
The entire Arctic cap is melting away, it will be completely gone in no more than 20-30 years now. And people still don't seem to be aware.
"there's nothing to block gases from escaping or entering the planet"
His first point is demonstrably false and based on ignorance, as if he's never heard of gravity before. Like, how does he think oxygen that we breathe stays on earth and doesnt just fly away into space and we all suffocate?
And yet, this is one of the most liked comments on this video?
Here's a tip for anyone who thinks climate change isn't real. Just go lookup a time lapse of the Arctic ice cap just north of Canada over the past 50 years. It's plainly apparent that the planet is getting hot. And it's all based on our pollution, that is emissions of CO2. Yes CO2 is a pollutant and too much of it is a bad thing. Just like too much oxygen is also bad, even though we need it to survive.b
Look at the census of scientists, I would cancel out the scientists who aren't meteorologists. Look at the scientists that disagree, how many of them are nonexperts. You'll find that most of those who agree with climate changes aren't experts.
Intuitive common sensical... ppl who don't agree have absence of common sense. There have been winters of above average snowfall. Gotta stop listening to this propoganda.
@@CDK008-hm3uethanks for the info, bro. God bless!
A few years ago I switched to calling it "caring for God's creation" and really made progress talking about the topic. This is God's creation and we are called to care for it. Do that and tell people that's what we are doing. When we can start to call it "caring for God's creation", the conversation will change. If your plans don't include God, I am not doing it.
Gavin, I love your videos on apologetics, but I have to disagree with you here. I'm from Argentina. Pastors there more often than not don't have the luxury of having a salary paid by the church and are bi-vocational. Half the country lives in poverty. We honestly don't have the resources to think about this issue.
I love God's creation and I try to take care of it however I can, but there are issues of higher priority.
When you mention that we should avoid greed, contentment and simplicity, I honestly believe you are thinking it through the lenses of your particular context in USA, where even poor people are richer than the average person in other countries.
When you say we have to study these issues: Ideally, yes. But how many other things do we need to study? And what about our daily jobs and families? Sometimes we can't study every subject as much as we would like. I'm passionate about learning and I still don't have the time to learn everything I'd like to learn. There is so much to learn about philosophy, science, theology, church history, etc.. I'm a software engineer, so I also need to learn new things everyday just to keep my job. And I'm a husband that needs to take care of his family, and learn new ways to provide for them everything they need.
I do believe than the principles you expose are correct, but in practice, this is not something that can be applied to the issue of Climate Change for all Christians accross the world.
And even though I agree with the principles exposed, I think there is room for disagreement about the "scientific concencensus" and the actual solutions proposed by the scientists.
czcams.com/video/f4zul0BuO8A/video.htmlsi=y9sRLEhwk1oZ3jnE
I've become more skeptical of the current climate change consensus as I grow older, and by observing how climate change tends to be entangled with other controversial progressive issues, I'm even more wary of it. Even so, climate change, if conclusively true, does not have any economically viable solutions. Electric cars are not a solution, neither are renewable energy sources like solar or wind. Nuclear is the way to go, but even green environmentalists reject nuclear for its association with nuclear waste and atomic bombs.
Electric utilities over fossil fuels is a good place to start, and it is economically viable. I've saved plenty of money by switching my home electricity to renewable energy. Have you considered this option?
@@CDK008-hm3uewhen you bought these items for renewable energy products did you account for all the carbon, hydro carbons. And heavy metals used in the process to make them and the waste products used in the manufacturing process? Did you account for the environmentally UNfriendly materials that will be released when at the end of the items service life? By your post here, I’d definitely say you didn’t .
@@KIEFFNERCLAN yes, I did. Any more questions?
@@CDK008-hm3ue What is your power generating source? Wind, solar, nuclear, fossil fuels?
@@shawnc.madden2181 wind and solar. You'll have to look at what companies serve your region and your utility company with electricity. But the sign up process is fairly simple if you live in the United States. Depending on what state you live in. Just check your electric bill and it might have more information about how to shop for your own electrical supplier.
I would probably be more receptive to talk about Climate Change if the solution didn't always seem to involve a consolidation of power into government hands and a perpetual expansion of their authority.
You can put power in the hands of the private sector by investing in green energy companies. Be it nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc. Or American EV vehicle manufacturers, which are American originating companies, like Ford or Chevy. Which empowers the people.
@@jjoesmith331 It is not the Right or Christians that are against nuclear power.
@@charliedontsurf334 the most media activity I've seen around nuclear, relates to Bill Gates support of terra energy or terra power. But I don't see much interest from either the left or the right in nuclear. But it is a viable option. France has ran almost completely on nuclear energy for decades, as an example.
@@jjoesmith331 Nuclear is the only option that has a snowball's chance in Hell of actually doing anything on CO2 pollution. The Right doesn't do anything because they don't agree on anything. Christians are only part of the Right. It is the Leftist Environmentalists who actively shut down nuclear powerplants.
The expansion of rooftop solar plus battery backup and EVs will lead to individuals having more control with the ability to live off-grid.
That seems to be a very reasonable and modest appeal: to study, think and talk more about an issue that very many people think is a very important issue.
As a Christian working in academia, I hear people talk about climate change so much and mix it with so many other ideological tropes that I get rather jaded. It's good to hear from someone dealing with a different demographic. I think we need a humble posture. Climate change is a real problem, but actually we are never going to "solve" the whole issue. Instead, we need to break it down into smaller problems that we can address, especially through technology. But technology doesn't excuse us Christians from taking seriously the idea that we should live more simply and consume less. So, I guess I mostly agree with your position, from what I can tell.
Are you aware that the climate has always been changing ever since God created this world? What issue specifically needs to be "solved"? If you are a Christian, you need to speak Biblically from a biblical worldview, not from a secular pagan worldview.
I was like you until I heard the truth….
czcams.com/video/zmfRG8-RHEI/video.htmlsi=RNUQX6zupxySUmqZ
The problem is the Climate change alarmist , they do not want to have a discussion. Those who opposed the narrative are cancelled. Any university professor who dare to question any of the tenets of this new religion is immediately fire or ostracized.
Two example are Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Pielke Jr. You can look their testimony how they where treated by "the consensus". So what science normally do to invite discussion is not allow.
You can see the John Robson CDN discussion nexus. The videos will show the reality of the discussion. here you can see Dr. Pielke Jr.
mailchi.mp/climatedn/cdn_newsletter_240717
The rest of the people that voice they opinion are retired, Nobody can fire them of their retirement.
If you happen to watch any of this videos, let me know how they fare. Thank You
I wonder what the overwhelming Consensus of Climate scientists is on whether men can get pregnant
“I don’t think there’s anything theologically that would discourage us from caring about an issue like climate change.” Do you realize how expensive and unreliable “green” energy is? Do you know what happens to mankind when the price of energy increases and is priced out of the common man’s “budget”? Extreme poverty for the general man. This leads to
-lowered life expectancy
-starvation
- increased risk of illness
-increase risk of abuse, theft, murder, and prostitution.
-reduced productivity as energy makes us more efficient, therefore, removing availability of affordable energy will lead to decreased productivity. This means less food and other goods being produced and increased costs in transporting goods.
God also calls us to love one another. How is it loving to knowingly and purposefully thrust society into mass poverty?
These are just some of the things that come to mind.
I love Gavin’s theological videos but I’m not sure what he’s read about this issue. Some good books are:
Eco Imperialism
by Paul Driessen
Climate Confusion
By Roy Spencer
Green Hell
By Steve Molloy
Inconvenient Facts
By Gregory Wrightstone
Cool It
By Björn Lomborg
Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years)
By Singer and Avery
Blue Planet in Green Shackles
By Václav Klaus
Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
By Anthony Watts…
Christians need to study before jumping on a bandwagon or leading others according to cultural mantras. The globalist radical eco agenda WILL impoverish and kill many. CO2 is not an enemy. Please read!!!
For those of you who prefer a novel, read Climate of Fear by Michael Crichton. The footnotes and dialogue are amazingly well-researched.
Or
The Green Dragon by Cal Beisner
Hey, get ahold of Cal at Cornwall Alliance! You 2 could have an excellent discussion! He’d be a great guest!!
I agree. There is nothing wrong with being a good steward and caring for the environment, but we must do so in a PRO-human way. We can't gloss over the fact that the climate cultists are at their core anti-human and boast about the various eugenic depopulation mechanisms which are a part of their so-called green agenda. For cryin out loud, they want to ban gas stoves, furnaces, and gas generators. This will lead to the deaths of many Upstate New Yorkers every winter. It's not like snow and freezing temps has disappeared in these parts. I for one am grateful to have had a gas stove to provide heat in my home during last Christmas' blizzard and power outage. Kathy Hochul and her WEF ilk are evil. It floors me that any Christian can get on board with their evil anti-human agenda.
Says he's studied this issue. I think that means he's studied someone on the left on the subject. His ignorance is appalling.
Some forms of green energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels. Wind energy is cheaper than coal for example. Nuclear energy is cheap as well. Many conservative politicians support nuclear energy development. And many green energy options can benefit the private sector as well, such as hybrid vehicles manufactured in American companies like Ford and Chevy.
The problem with this climate change talk is the statist interventionist policies. No one would care if someone personally and freely chose to eat bugs, to use less water or stop using power for certain parts of the day to help the environment. More power to them. But when you start forcing us through government coercion to eat bugs instead of real meat, stop using water and electricity for our homes then that’s where most people have problems. Eliminate government coercion and instead win people to your side through good arguments and reason and a compelling moral vision. But again, this tends to not be the route most climate change activists tend to take.
I would think that a major part of Gavin's position is that, protecting the environment aligns with stewardship of God's creation. That's about as morally good as it gets.
When you gather electricity, water, and food solely from the land you own, you can ignore the collective aspect. Until then you’ll have to consider others in your usage of those things.
The biggest evidence to me that all the critics aren’t serious: this video still only has 9k views. Too many Christians (not following the advice of St. James) are being quick to speak and slow to hear…
If so then that applies to the defence too; I was just at a video discussing Meg Basham's book and there were angry demands for retractions from people who haven't read the book or even the part on Ortlund.
@@SeanusAurelius Is your suggestion that for a person to justifiably defend Gavin they need to have bought the book and read the section in question?
The video only has 9k views likely because it's been deemed political vs theological. It's possible it's both. The issue is "Climate change" is a loaded term. Which includes it being anthropomorphic.
As Christians, our focus should be proclaiming the truth of the gospel, the message that has the power to save souls. Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. What we can know for certain is that God is good and sovereign, and that Planet Earth will be our habitat for as long as God desires it to be. Psalm 46:2-3, "Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging."
I think that one piece of the solution to climate change is nuclear energy. From what I understand about the topic, it’s by far the most efficient alternative energy source and, contrary to popular belief, very safe and clean.
I agree that nuclear is part of the solution. But it's not clear that it's the most efficient alternative energy source. In most energy markets some form of renewable energy is the cheapest energy source. And renewables are much quicker to build - nuclear power plants typically take a decade to build, whilst solar panels and wind turbines can be manufactured and installed within a few months.
Nuclear would be great for baseline energy needs, especially with further electrification of vehicles.
@N/A I'm not arguing that nuclear shouldn't play a role, though I disagree that it must "inevitably" play a role. Experts say that it is actually possible to run a grid on 100% renewables even if you don't have a good source of geothermal or hydroelectric. I'm simply pointing out that renewables are cheap, quick to build, and can be used in circumstances where a large power plant is simply too much. None of these things are true of nuclear, which is why I think that switching from fossil fuels should be done primarily by switching to renewables with nuclear being there to cover that last 10% or so where renewables would start to get expensive.
It's also worth noting that renewables can have the effect of reducing consumption. There's some evidence that households with solar panels will reduce their energy usage in order to try and get into profit on their energy bill (at least during the summer). So encouraging the uptake of domestic solar panels gives additional benefits to everybody except the people who run big power plants.
@N/A Bill Gates tends to focus in on advanced technologies rather than more practical ones. Batteries aren't the only way to store energy. You can, for example, use renewables to pump water uphill when there's excess power generation and then send that water downhill through a turbine when there's a lack. And properly connected grids massively reduce the issue with wind - it's incredibly rare that the wind isn't blowing somewhere.
Nuclear generates highly toxic waste throughout its life, as well as when you decommission a plant. Solar and wind only generate waste when a turbine or solar panel comes to the end of its life.
I'm not sure I understand your point about efficiency. Solar and wind turn energy that ultimately comes from the sun directly into electricity. Nuclear uses uranium, or a similar material, to generate heat, which then heats a container of water, which then flows through a turbine. The efficiency of those turbines is pretty much the same as that of a wind turbine.
We only have decades to respond if we want to risk global temperature rises of well over 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels (and we only avoid extreme consequences if we limit it to below 1.5 degrees). So whilst I agree that nuclear needs to be part of the solution, I still think that we make more progress by focusing primarily on renewables and secondarily on nuclear, whilst you seem to think the opposite.
And it's not the radioactivity of the materials that generates nuclear power, it's their ability to be fused together by extreme heat.
@N/A I agree with your latest comment. Russia shelling a nuclear power plant on Friday morning demonstrates that there are major problems having nuclear in potential conflict zones (though obviously you don't necessarily know what is going to become a conflict zone during the plant's lifetime when you're planning and building).Fukushima demonstrates that they are a bad fit for earthquake zones (though I'd expect that most earthquake zones have good geothermal potential for an alternative "always on except during maintenance or equipment failure" power source, and Iceland proves that you can run a country on 100% geothermal).
I just came here from your video about Megan Basham (horrible slander I agree BTW). I think what you are missing about the Climate Change issue is how cultic it is. You seem to have this idea that there is a consensus of free minds, but in reality there is a lot of groupthink and social pressure, and an enormous amount of funding opportunity involved. When I was a postdoctoral scientist, I once expressed my own view at the time: that climate change is probably happening, but its not worth destroying the economy over. Both my senior colleagues told me that they agree, but they said it in such a way as to communicate that I should probably not say it again. I recommend anyone to listen to Bjorn Lomborg. He takes it seriously, basically accepts the IPCC, cites it for all his claims, but shows its not a big deal in the way mainstream media or popular science would make you think. My mature view (take a deep breath and prepare to be shocked) is that CO2 is actually good for the world. The amount of plant biomass produced every year is now greater than before, because in many cases the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the limiting factor on their growth. A warmer world also means more fresh water than ever before on average (warmer air carries more water vapor and drives weather/winds faster, leading to more precipitation). Therefore we should be focused on building dams and flood defenses to control and distribute this bonanza of fresh water. But there is no point in worrying about fossil fuel use, which is a lost cause in any case, since there is no way that China or India is going to stop using coal any time soon. I am not American, and I do know what you mean about Americans seeming to be anti-intellectual. Often they are. But the Bible does warn against "the wisdom of the wise" and I do like the fact that Americans are highly resistant to coercive authority; they are "protestant" in their approach to all kinds of things. It has some downsides; I have noticed that within any group in the USA it is common to see groupthink. BUT overall because there are so many groups that think differently, there is overall a much greater diversity of thought here than anywhere else in the world, and that is a real strength.
I have been following the Megan Basham issue as well. I think what you have said makes plenty of sense and that God designed the earth to be able to withstand population growth and resource use. However, the use of toxic chemicals and plastics and the wastefulness that we seem to cherish, as Americans, is problematic. The never ending consumption of plastic and our willingness to recklessly use harsh chemicals for the sake of convenience is just poor stewardship. I want to see Christians being excellent stewards, but for Christians to be leading some kind of charge does seem to be inciting Christians to a certain activism that I'm not sure I can support. It's a tough issue.
You cannot build dams and levees large enough, nor fast enough, to deal with the issue that is being sowed. Also, the issue affects things like food production and agriculture. Fish populations and marine food products. You can't just pump water from the ocean over mountains whenever a lake dries up. It's not feasible etc.
@andyjones1982. I have a lot of respect for your take on things. Many good points. I came back and re-listened to this talk. He is indeed far more incredulous than I thought first time through. Not only does he seem naïve to the rampant politicization of science but to the gravity of Great Reset thuggery! So yes, there are potential negative consequences to giving in on this issue. Plus, as you state quite well, there’s almost nothing we can do in the West (short of nuking China) to alleviate the situation.
I’m an ardent environmentalist. I wish there were something we could do, at least in a general sense. Unfortunately, Ortlund has “drunk the kool-aid,” so to speak. He lacks epistemological humility on this one. “I’m NOT a scientist!” he proclaims, “But I know without a shadow of a doubt how earth-shattering serious this all is!”
Well, I’M not a scientist, and I have no idea who’s telling the truth on this one….
I truly have no idea how Gavin became such a lemming on this issue…unless he’s trapped in a bit of a political bubble.
Sorry for sounding so negative toward Gavin here.I agree that Megan is in the wrong. And “Truth Unites” is probably my favorite CZcams channel.
I’m more ignorant than you on this topic, but I’ve often wondered “why do we assume that everything about climate change is bad?” Most things in this life are filled with pros and cons, why would this issue be any different?
@@manualboyca it's not climate change that is the bad part. The bad part is that we don't have a way of limiting or stopping it. It's like being in a bathtub. There's nothing wrong with taking a bath. Nothing wrong with warming up the water, nothing wrong with more water in the tub. But what is a problem is if you don't know how to turn off the spigot or stop it from warming up. And the matter becomes even worse if we are responsible for turning the spigot on and turning the heat up.
Brother, I don't agree with you on this Climate Change issue for a couple of reasons, though I understand your approach. Anyway, you DID NOT DESERVE the treatment you have been receiving lately in Basham's book. I've been reading what that lady used to post in X during the last year and I used to find myself at odds with her politically-charged spiritually-sanitized views of doctrine, politics, and Christian life.
I have been blessed with your work, though I do not always agree which I find OK. You are my brother in Christ. So, lift up your head and keep trusting the Lord.
Go actually read Megan’s book. He has bought into the climate change lie. I say this as a meteorologist.
@@charliedontsurf334the bible doesn't define man's impact on climate change, Gavin is entitled to his opinion just as Megan is, her implication is defamation and I opposed this video 2 years ago when he posted it
@@charliedontsurf334 I don't agree with Gavin in Climate change. But I would never consider that as sufficient to consider him a shepherd for sale which is a gross acussation. I did not buy the vaccines mandates though I heard few pastors I love to say that getting the vaccine meant loving our neighboor, even a pastor who is a medical doctor to recommend it to the church. I did not buy the reasons nor trusted the "consensus" but I would never considered them as shepherds for sale.
The point which I see in Basham's slandering book is a political one, sanitized with doctrinal issues to make them acceptable at first sight. This is the Daily Wire dictating or lecturing Christians on how an orthodox pastor should believe and -surprise surprise- all of them are points of heated political debate. Sorry, I can't buy a book of that kind.
The day Ortlund denies the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the incarnation, or the salvation by grace, that day I would think that he has become a shepherd for sale.
@@charliedontsurf334 well then, what about something like this: czcams.com/video/f4zul0BuO8A/video.htmlsi=y9sRLEhwk1oZ3jnE
@@jotaone You won't buy it but you did read it?
Excuse my spam in the comments but, Gavin I support your position with regard to Megan's book - even though we disagree about climate change. I am a PhD in EE with decades of experience so I am not a "real" climate scientist, but I think the anti-alarmist position seems compelling to me especially when you consider the shenanigans being played alarmists - like cherry picking data and sanctioning dissenting climate experts. The good news, Gavin, is that the planet is going to be OK in spite of CO2 levels - in fact things may get better because of rising CO2. We would be MUCH better served by focusing on REAL pollution - things that are toxic to humans and other life.
Planet is going to be okay? One of the point Gavin makes in the video is that of change in climate patterns in local areas and he specifically spoke about less frequent heavy rains. This has been a problem in the place where we live for the last few years. Just last week, 500 people died in Kerala, India as a result landslide, which occurred after unprecedented heavy rain. Livelihood of fishermen are getting affected, because they get less catch because of warm see. Then there are issues of extreme climate events like drought and heavy rain , which destroy agriculture and cause great loss to farmers and cause food inflation.
@@harmonypizza If you think CO2 is causing this, then India/China are going to have to cut their CO2 emissions because the USA/EU reductions don't compare with increases in China/India. Of course, that will affect hundreds of millions of people.
Bob, increased CO2 is a bad thing if it goes unchecked. It will simply continue to cause our climate to warm, causing more heat waves, bigger hurricanes, strain on agriculture, the collapse of coral reef ecosystems, continued melting of the ice caps and rising sea levels which result in more flooding etc.
@@jjoesmith331 Each of the points you're making can be disputed with data. There are many other factors of climate than CO2 and CO2 is only 0.04% while water vapor is much more and water shares the same absorption power spectrum so more energy is likely taken in by water than CO2. Sea level rise has been very consistent at 4mm/year since the Civil War and shows no sign of accelerating even though CO2 has accelerated and even the most modest sea level rise projections have been overly pessimistic. The coral is not dying, in fact, coral likes warm water. Australia's Barrier reef has see a huge (historic) recent increase.
@@bobthrasher8226 no. The rate of sea level rise has accelerated since the industrial revolution. Do you have published research stating otherwise?
I mean climates have been changing since we realized there was such a thing as climate.
Changing, yes. But that’s a misrepresentation of what the climate change debate is about. There is lots of scientific evidence that the earth is warming and it is our fault - thus it is not “natural” climate change like your comment seems to imply.
@@Iamwrongbut the overwhelming majority of emmisons is actually water that is increasing the climate. Plus 100 years ago our increase in climate warming was close to 4x. Plus there is the heat death of the universe. It seems to me to be very unlikely something that is a real issue. Even if it was there is absolutely nothing we can do. All this will lead to is panick and fear.
@@Iamwrongbut Also this world is in a fallen state so of course it's our fault. And I'm not as ignorant as to say we shouldn't recycle or compost or be frugal. I just don't think people understand that they are dangerously close to Gaia worship in a lot of Christian circles. Appeal to God not government. The Bible even says there will be natural distaters. Blaming it solely on climate changes is kinda secularism at its core. I don't deny climate change. I deny that I have control or any man has control over it.
@@newreformationapologetics4953 you should read the book he linked in the description. Your statements are simply false.
@@Iamwrongbut Ok but I have other scientists who have said the opposite. Plus that graph they used many years ago was proven falsified and fossil fuel emissions were a very small amount of the isssue. What I'm arguing is that maybe we should think more about why people want us to focus on fossil fuels rather than many other issue of pollution. Also this is much like evolution which is slowly becoming less scientific and more idealistic. Science is just the best hypothesis for cause and effect. I just think we don't have enough information in my opinion.
Had to come here to just offer some encouragement, brother. Many are attacking you for wrong reasons, but many out there like me greatly appreciate your work. You are serving the Lord faithfully and I hope you just continue to make quality content.
Blessings, brother Gavin. Continue staying focused on what God has you doing as His servant.
Thank you for this, Gavin. The thing that has baffled me for a long time about many Christians' strong, sometimes vehement reactions to this issue, is that I can see no downside to making many of the lifestyle changes advocated by environmental experts. Worst case, we've cultivated a simpler, less wasteful lifestyle and learnt to be content with less, and we've done it in the hope that maybe it will help others. Even if it turns out it doesn't, so what? It won't have done us any harm in the meantime. We might even grow in some textbook Christian virtues, like contentment, simplicity, sober-mindedness, generosity. Imagine if Jesus' disciples, or Paul's missionary brothers, had said, "Yes, I'll lay down my comfortable lifestyle, but only if you can guarantee me I'll see actual results." I also love that you addressed this strange notion that you have to pick a camp and be passionate about only the issues in that pre-packaged thought bundle, and to the same degree as everyone else in that camp. Such a lie. Bless you!
There is a great panel discussion on Mark Laniers CZcams channel. Look up Green Theology: The Christian Charge Concerning The Ecology @ Lanier Theological Library. As one of the panelists points out in Genesis we are given dominion, which is responsibility. Dr. Katherine Hayhoe is there and she is a Christian and one of the top voices in Climate Science.
I agree. If you personally decide to change your life style because that’s what you believe you should do, that is commendable! If, on the other hand, you vote to spend trillions of dollars to deprive poor people of the cleanest and least expensive forms of energy, that’s sinful.
Excuse me if I don’t want to make changes in my life to reduce “climate change” when so-called “experts” and sky-is-falling politicians are jetting around the world like I go to the grocery store and go on more vacations than I will in my entire life.
Do you understand how much pollution comes out of China but I am supposed to pay a climate tax in Canada??
We don’t take the climate change narrative seriously because the so-called experts say one thing and do another.
It’s a narrative used to push taxes and control citizens.
Get outta here with this nonsense.
stick to air, water, soil and habitat issues. polution too. those are biblical stewardship issues. climate change is largely beyond our pay grade. and the misguided green totalitarianism saddles the global poor with policies that starve the poorest of the poor, while we pat ourselves on the back. its misguided.
Plastic waste is horrible. We see garbage blowing around all over the roads in water ways etc.
Landfill waste is disgusting. We have become wasteful and destructive. We need to really be careful and have better environmental policy
Hard part about that is that recycling is not a valid solution to it either. It puts double the number of waste collection trucks on the road every day (not to mention the issue with manufacturing them). Also the emissions and nasty chemicals from recycling. Solution can only be to be less wasteful
@@coltonmoore4572 The environmental movement has always said that we should reduce the amount of stuff we use as the first priority, reuse stuff as the second, and only then resort to recycling. But whilst recycling isn't the best solution, it's clearly less problematic than landfill or incineration as a method of dealing with those things we can't reuse.
@@stephengray1344 totally agree with using less! But I'm not convinced that doubling emissions from waste collection vehicles and putting a cocktail of chemicals in the atmosphere from recycling is preferable to a landfill.
@@coltonmoore4572 Landfill puts a cocktail of toxic chemicals in the air, as the waste decays. Whilst recycling rarely produces substantially worse chemical emissions than manufacturing the same goods from raw materials.
It isn't necessary to double the number of waste collection vehicles in order to have a recycling program. Amsterdam collects its waste by a series of pneumatic tubes, rather than by using waste collection vehicles. And many places with recycling collections only collect residual waste half as often as they did before they started collecting recycling.
@@stephengray1344 I'll defer to your expertise on the decaying of landfills. I'm not studied in that area.
It definitely depends on what is being recycled. Glass and metal are one thing. But plastic is pretty nasty. I think that a good alternative is compostable products or switching to reusable products. Plastic just is nasty stuff no matter what.
I think my point is that we get behind these massive projects like recycling, but don't think about some of the negative effects. Like those tubes in Amsterdam... what would that look like? Seems like a lot of construction work and lots of plastic.
In waste collection vehicles, I'm just pulling data from California. They doubled the number of vehicles. But it's not just that they are on the road every day. It's the manufacturing of those vehicles that is also an issue. Lithium for the batteries. Etc.
I agree that we are overly wasteful. But a great solution has not been found yet. And one won't be found until we find compostable materials in my opinion.
Gavin, it's one thing to tell christians they Should care about the environment. It's another thing to say that Christians should be concerned about climate change.
You're already presuming that climate change is true and you've attached and "ought" to the conscience of the christian trying to make it binding.
You've already decided for everybody. Answers in Genesis would disagree with you
One thing that I think gets neglected in this discussion is that I don't see people acknowledging that the poorest and least developed countries are basically being told that the industrialisation that allowed other countries to generate massive economies aren't permitted to them.
There is nothing wrong with this video for Megan Basham to attack. It is not anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-church, or theologically heretical. She has slandered a very good scholar without reason and lied about his character. She has done so only to benefit her pocketbook. Bottom line, Megan Basham is guilty of falsely accusing a brother in Christ. She needs to retract her comments and apologize. Then, if she has the courage, burn the book.
I came here to watch because of her claims. It's like she watched a different video.
@@duanerichardson2380 Exactly right!
I agree with your statement about Dr Ortlund's video. However, I think you may be over reaching by ascribing motives to Megan Basham.
@@warwickallen6067 Thanks for your comment. I still question Megan's motive to build a case against false shepherds using the innocent as fodder. Gavin was clearly hurt by her comments and she has not responded to him. Why is that? I think her actions toward the situation speaks volumes to me. But, thanks for your words. I am mulling them over. I don't want to be guilty of falsely accusing someone myself.
i watched a youtube interview that she had with some guy.
my preliminary impression is that she is the type that has genuine convictions, is polarised, isn't very introspective, sees herself as a champion of truth, and her iq is
Enjoyed this video a ton. I've always said the three important issues of our time are the Gospel, abortion, and climate change (in that order).
I think it is fairly undeniable that climate change is happening. Obviously scientists debate on the amount of effect people have and the severity of the issue. But it does need to be addressed for sure.
I think a big thing to consider though is what we do with that information. Do we just stop all fossil fuel production? And it is a worldwide issue, so if we do that, we greatly stifle the economies of other nations and keep people in massive poverty where they can't feed themselves.
So if we don't just stop using all fossil fuels, where do we get energy from? Solar isn't an option: what do you do when it is cloudy? Same with wind: what if it isn't windy? Put the energy in batteries that require lithium? Not to mention the materials that go into solar panels and wind turbines.
Also, with wind specifically, if the wind blows too fast, it requires energy to cool the turbines. Also, the wings are made of fiberglass, and they are beginning to fall apart. You can't recycle fiberglass. And anyone who has seen the wings be hauled anywhere, they are massive.
Speaking of recycling, it is one of the worst things you can do. Doubles the number of waste collection vehicles. And recycling is not a clean process.
Again, love the idea that we should do something, but other than being less wasteful, the question is what do we do? I advocate for nuclear and hydropower. And I think landfills and composting is better than recycling, but if we could simply go to reusable products, that would be even better.
Keep making important videos like this! I enjoyed watching it. Just be aware that even if there is a desire to do something, the ability to do it does not always exist.
@N/A totally agree that there are upsides to these clean options. My point is that we don't recognize the downsides. We should have learned from using methyl chloride in refrigerators that miracle things have side effects too. But it seems like people just want to ignore any possible bad effects of these things. Especially the lithium for batteries. That's the biggest one
Great contributions to the discussion! I agree with you.
"Science is an inherently conservative process." This is not true when science is funded by corporations,non-profits, and governments seeking specific results. Also, not all "science" is equally scientific. Climate science depends enormously on presuppositions built into computer driven climate models.
I listened to Shepherds for Sale. I listened to his response. I listened to this video. They're both right.
"I'm only saying Christians can't responsibly ignore this issue by not reading the science etc." Earnest and honest position.
"Let me point you to the things you need to consider, and let me tell you where I land." This is where it's laying an undue burden.
Would not an earnest but undefensive Christian listen to this and think "I guess I need to read all this stuff"? But you're looking in the wrong place. Yes there's a "scientific consensus" view, but contrary to his point it's unfalsifiable. You can't prove humans aren't causing climate change.
The science is not accessible to you. You can read what "scientists agree on", but the scientific community has discredited itself (see COVID).
The question is not whether the science backs it up. The question is whether it's worth believing. And an earnest Christian doesn't need to read the studies to conclude in good faith that it's not worth their time to do deep study.
50,000,000 years ago….. okay. 🤦🏼♂️
What, you think the earth is flat and 6000 years old?
@@CDK008-hm3ue What you think the earth is a hypercube and 1 quadrillion years old?
I'd love to see you do an interview with Bob Murphy on this, he's a Christian economist that has looked specifically at the cost of the proposed government solutions compared to the potential costs of climate change. That question is not a climate science question but really an economic one. I'd argue that the cost of the various proposed measures of reducing energy consumption would have a much higher cost, especially on the poorest countries since the availability of cheap energy is a huge factor in lifting people out of poverty and raising the standard of living.
Does he take into account the cost of the impacts of climate change? Because those fall disproportionately on the poorest countries (who are the strongest voices calling for international action on the issue). It's also worth noting that in most places renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables are also easier to deploy in places which don't have established power grids, since you can install small-scale renewable generation much more easily than you can install small-scale fossil fuel plants. And in poor countries you don't have to keep importing coal, oil, or gas to run them.
@N/A He doesn't say that switching to renewables changes the demand for energy, but rather reduces the availability of cheap energy because renewables are more expensive.
@@stephengray1344 Are you taking into account government subsidies when saying that renewables are cheaper? If they are only "cheaper" because of subsidies, then they are not actually cheaper, just paid for through different (and, I would argue, thoroughly unjust) means.
@@SotS1689 The figures I've seen are ones that try to account for the effect of subsidies (and all all forms of energy generation receive some form of government subsidy in almost all Western countries).
@N/A @Stephen Gray, I'd be interested in those resources if you can send a few links over.
I'm also against gov't subsidies of fossil fuels (actually, I'm against all gov't subsidies) and so ideally, if renewable energy is actually cheaper and more reliable (or at least as reliable) then the free market would naturally move in that direction, which I don't view as a bad thing if they are indeed more reliable and cheaper. Unfortunately, most countries don't have anything close to a free market in energy (including the USA).
What I think is very unwise, is attempting to solve the issue through gov't coercion (which I recognize no one has advocated for here, so I'm not implying that this is your view) with policies that will do more damage than good. Even mainstream climate economists (such as William ENordhaus who won the nobel prize for his works on the economics of climate change) admit that the measures necessary to limit the global temp. warming to 1.5C would be economically more disastrous than doing nothing.
Thanks for chatting with us about this. I think my contention typically revolves around the politicization of the issue. I will say it would be productive to present criticisms and address those. Thoughts:
- not sure a baseline of only 60 years ago is convincing in itself to show an impact of temperature
- greenhouse gas are actually necessary for us to live (earth would be too cold) they are not bad but rather the over accumulation can be. Water vapor is actually a greenhouse gas and is responsible for the most impact
- greenhouse gases don’t stay around forever e.g. plants absorb CO2
- the increase in wildfires talking point has been pretty well debunked as it has been shown more driven by management practices
- I am a little appalled you would compare abortion to impacts from climate change. Murdering a child is much different than the sea rising slowly over many years. Humans can adapt to some changes in climate unless of course they have been killed via abortion in which case they are dead. You’re a smart guy and I think you can make a much better comparison
- what period can we point to and say was the optimal climate on earth or where we say it was ‘normal’ and also why we say it is?
All in all I do believe humans impact the earths climate, however to what degree that happens seems to be hard to pinpoint. This isn’t helped by the leading voices like Al Gore saying by 2020 all the coasts would be submerged and obviously they aren’t. The problem is ‘science’ rarely admits when they were wrong if they are such as talking about how coal takes millions of years to form but yet it is forming on Mount Saint Helens in Washington only 30 years after the eruption. I do love you as a brother in Christ and obviously any differences in opinion on this have no bearing on what I think of you. God bless you and thanks for your ministry!
Agreed - The politicization of it has drowned trust in any part of it. There is a difference between being environmentally conservative, and a climate activist. There are many goals governments could tackle that are visible which they simply don't. We pay off China to take our trash, and they dump it on poor countries. We avoid sustainable energy just so there's a constant industry of temporary, inefficient, expensive products. If any of the activism tackled these obvious issues in environmental protections, then I'd have more reason to believe the rest.
We're being told that the only way to save ourselves from total annihilation, and moral ignorance, is to give governments more power. That was about as convenient of a message as the covid measures enforced over two years. The population projection is actually false, we're in a birth-rate crisis, yet we see propaganda telling people that having children is damaging the planet.
There is no 'science'. There are scientists. The loudest of the activists are overwhelmingly not scientists, but politically driven individuals. I do not trust this urgency is reflective on truth, nor an actual compassion of the planet.
Yea, a few thoughts to play off of this comment. One, the idea that we can model something as complex as the climate/atmosphere of the world with any certainty weeks into the future, let alone years/decades, is preposterous. Many predictions, like that of the aforementioned Al Gore, based on models like this, have failed spectacularly.
Secondly, you can go back 50, 60, 70 years and see other similar calls to alarm for things that did not pan out. At one point the science supposedly told us we were going to enter a devastating freezing period. Of course, this is zero proof that what we're facing today isn't real. It could be more dire than even the most vocal climate alarmists are screaming about. The problem is that the boy has cried wolf several times in regards to climate over the past decades. At any of those points, credible people were pointing to what was being claimed as sound science showing that we were facing a doomsday scenario, and nothing came of it.
Third, and probably most importantly, fear is one of the most effective weapons of power that people can wield. When you're dealing with an apocalyptic fear, there are almost no limits to what you can justify. Inevitably, groups, politicians, corporations, etc will try to stoke the fear in order to get power/do what they want to do.
If you're reading these things and dismissing it as climate denial, I would ask you to carefully re-read my points. Everything I've said would still be true even if the situation turns out to be as bad or worse than anyone is saying. These are a few reasons to exercise skepticism in the face of what is being sold as an existential threat. There are two sides to the equation here. It's not a free lunch to just completely accept the threat that is being presented. There are great risks in doing so.
God bless you.
To add, the book of Job. Particularly the chapter when God talks to him personally
@@wootsat There was never a point where the science told us we were going to enter a new ice age. Even back in the 1970s (when climate science was largely studying the impact of individual factors, rather than considering the total effect of all factors), the vast majority of scientific papers in the field predicted global warming. Still, if you have any examples of where climate scientists (as opposed to politicians or activists trying to change policy by hyping up the threat to overcome the influence of vested interests like the fossil fuel industry) have cried wolf, I'd be interested to hear them.
Kind of hard for plants to absorb C02 when they're all being chopped down.
And yes, oxygen is similar in that we need it to survive. So it's good, however too much of it will also kill us.
The optimal climate is what we experience today, because that's what we have built our infrastructure and developed our agriculture around.
"there's nothing that should make christians not care about climate change" - there is that one thing though all such caring which is framed by in spirit of the age end up with a mega state far beyond the biblical mandate for kings. There's far more wisdom in people like sir Roger Scruton, Russell Kirk or even Jordan Peterson who can talk about the environment in humane ways, than the christian who swallows up both the problem statement and solution from NY times, WSJ or some deranged green activist.
Remember that the same scientists continuously tell use humans are machines, the middle ages were dark times with neanderthals still running around, and that though they can predict the temperature at the north pole 50 million years ago they still didn't crack the boy/girl distinction. Does it mean science is useless? no. Does it mean reading 3 books on climate change shouldn't change your theological outlook on the biblical role of the state? yes.
Care about the environment. And care deeply. But if you find yourself everyday thinking about some polluted river in South East Asia while you can't be bothered to tend to your own backward garden, you're probably not on the right path. If you end up concluding UN is a good thing because we can impose climate justice to the ends of the earth you're definitely not in a position to scold christians because they are wary of green globalism for "socio-political" reasons.
It's not the environment that good christians don't care for, it's the people who can't imagine any other way to steward the creation except through the politico-scientists wielding godly powers.
Agreed. I guess you're here about Megan's book? Was she fair to Gavin? So far I don't think so and I did watch the video.
Not sure. Only saw one side.
But I would be afraid if my pastor talked like this. Maybe that’s because of “socio-political” reasons, who knows?
You almost said it as I was thinking it before I watched the video: since when does God not give our actions consequences??
I started my Christian journey in a Federal prison--not the best place to be discipled! But I listened to gobs of Christian radio and largely it was beneficial--but the thought package where Christian=political conservative and Climate change=political liberal was imbibed. I was dismissive until one day it hit me--how does our use of resources not merit consequences in God's eyes??
I intend to share this video with friends and I pray they'll be open to the idea and not "thought packaged."
Hey there! How are you doing now?
I love you Gavin but as an autistic conservative Christian, I STRONGLY disagree with the content of this video. But I don't want to disrupt your comments section too much. I just want to say I love you a lot and that your support for climate change ideology is support for pedophilia, sex changes for five year olds, Infanticide, and all the other consequences of giving credibility to Democrats. I am extremely turned off by this and if you are politically left leaning I hope you don't make more videos about it, because I really like and trust you. But this bothers me an awful lot due to my autism. You're awesome though Brother!!!!!!!
Please do not vote for Democrats. No matter what you think about the earth. They do bad things to kids.
Edit:
I also don't understand why this is a big deal in light of the facts that we're all going to die, earth is going to be destroyed in fire, it will be rebuilt as a Paradise again, and we will live there forever.
Why worry about visible things instead of invisible things?
God is in control. ❤️🌿
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! You might notice I did not say a single thing about Republicans or Democrats in this video. Part of my concern is that we should not treat an issue based just upon its political associations. Thanks again for the kind words. God bless
@@TruthUnites You're welcome, and thank you very much. I appreciate you a lot, and thank you for replying to me! I'm not used to that, lol. You know, I do appreciate that you're probably not a democrat but you believe in this stuff. I could research it in earnest and really find out as best I can if it's real or exaggerated. I guess it's amazing how political the idea is. It is interesting how you said it's only so political and divisive in America. I try not to believe things just for political reasons. I do think giving credibility to climate change, in this country, generally does play out in favor of Democrats because they're generally the ones focusing on that.
If it really is real, I guess you're wise to care about it. I just worry about giving credibility to the left leaning realm at all. And even if it's real, I don't know why it matters since the world is going to be destroyed on purpose anyway. By God I mean.
God bless you superabundantly.
I just searched for this video after reading Megan Basham‘s book. I heard about your rebuttal video but wanted to watch the original and make a decision for myself as to whether or not she accurately represented you. Personally, I feel like what she put in her book is completely accurate and nearly Word for Word what you said in this video. I am not sure if you are trying to do damage control or trying to use her fame for your own publicity but either way she definitely accurately represented your video.
So Gavin is a good primary example in a chapter of a book “Shepards for Sale?”
Truly, I’m seeking defenders of Megan to provide specifics and I haven’t found one yet. Could you help me out? :)
@@FuddlyDud she quoted him accurately. Read the book, watch his video, it's an accurate representation of him.
@@ANEJIPARKER
Ok, that’s not specific.
Where did Gavin specifically say that dissenters of his view were conspiracy believers?
I love your channel, but I find it odd how you approach this subject compared to theological topics. You said that we need to "hit the books" and study the evidence for climate change. However, when you mentioned the NUMBER ONE objection to climate change - namely, the cyclical nature of temperatures of the earth - you simply dismissed it, saying "I just don't buy that." Are you not going to "hit the books" on that objection? Are you not going to interact with data from ice samples showing a regular pattern of temperatures rising and dropping in regular cycles that go back THOUSANDS of years? Are you not going to look into the data that the CO2 in the air is not much higher than it was 3,000 years ago? I could go on (if I was smarter).
With theological issues, you do a lot of research and you are fair about both sides of the issue. That's why I love your channel. But on this issue (which is, admittedly, not your field of study), I feel that you are just pushing for one side without giving much study on the opposing theories.
CO2 levels are way higher than they were 3,000 years ago. What are you talking about?
Watching this after Meghan Bashan's book and subsequent twitter post......wow she really missed your point here....😢
Thanks for the video- God bless.
This is SPOT on!
Wow, Dr. Ortlund. I'm impressed you would talk about something like this that's so divisive. I have even more respect for you.
I think Christians' hesitation with this issue stems from fear of the tendency for authorities to use emergencies to take and hold power. However, I think an honest, fact-based approach is the best one.
And then we take action based on what good (truly good) steps we can take to promote human flourishing.
It sounds like you are a fan of Dr. Ortland. So am I. It sounds like you are being very polite to him on this subject. I see that this video by Dr. Ortland was made two years ago. I hope that by now he has had time to recognize that the solutions that are proposed for global climate change are worse for the environment than the original problem.
@@larrykardatzke2937 The extinction of humanity is the original problem. What proposed solution is worse than that?
@@CDK008-hm3ue That is not the original problem. That is the original fear mongering position.
@@smt0202 what else do you anticipate happening if the earth continues to warm without a means of stopping?
@@smt0202 are you aware that roughly half of all wildlife populations, God's created kinds, have vanished in the past 150 years? You think that our actions do not have repercussions? Have you ever seen a northern white rhino? A tasmanian tiger or dodo bird? The current rate of habitat destruction and extinction the animal kingdom is the worst seen in history since the end of the dinosaurs. It's so bad, scientists are calling it the "anthropocene". It's own geologic epoch marking the decline of biodiversity.
The fact that google puts an article link under the video tells me all I need to know...
All it tells you is that this is a topic where there is generally recognised to be a large amount of misinformation being circulated.
@@stephengray1344 yeah, and as a Christian I should probably side against Google, given they track record..,
@@mikezeke7041 By that logic, you would have to say that the Earth is flat - since Google take the same approach on that issue.
@@stephengray1344 🤣 sure thing
I really appreciate you talking about this issue. I became convinced of the science several years ago but, as an evangelical Christian conservative, I typically don’t talk about it at all because it is not a welcomed opinion. So, thank you. Blessings, Doc!
It's welcome in liberal churches.
@@coryc1904 Yeah, but sound theology isn't. : )
The lesson of Sri Lanka is a lesson we should take seriously.
I have recently had the epiphany that I should care about God's planet recently. I cannot count how many times I have said "it's going to all burn up anyways." But... that's not how God sees his creation as he is in the process of redeeming and restoring it from a fallen state.
So much of my previous hesitancy is political as you have said. That being said, I'm not giving myself over to climate alarmism. Some of the ideas ... eliminating cows? Seems completely ridiculous.
As far as scientific consensus, we have to know that science has been wrong... a lot. We were worried about global cooling back in the 80's, correct? Also, let's not forget there are huge financial incentives to push that narrative and get funding. Intelligent design (I know you are considering macroevolution which to me is not valid still) faces this all the time. They have no funding and no hearing in the scientific community. Do we know how much mankind contributes to temperature change...no (as you said)...but it is largely irrelevant as we should be looking for ways to clean it up.
Another hesitation and pause I have is that I also tend to think the world powers will leverage climate change to roll out more power grabs and lockdown type stuff... maybe "carbon credit" system or something.
Practically, I want to take care of my land better and look to create less waste and trash. I want to promote healthier practices and recycling... I'm good with that. We are to be stewards of God's creation, and trashing it up and wasting it isn't good stewardship. period.
I agree as a Christian we should have a greater motivation to take care of this planet. But, we don't have to let the pendulum swing so far that we start banning cows.
Thankful for your channel, Gavin.
It's not true that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 80s. The majority of climate science papers have been predicting global warming since the field was established in the 1970s. And when it comes to financial incentives, there are lots of them on the sceptical side as well. The fossil fuel industry is incredibly rich, and its behaviour on the issue has basically been identical to the way the tobacco industry reacted to evidence that smoking causes cancer. And it's the political, rather than scientific, side of the issue where most of the money is spent.
I can see your concerns about governments abusing the issue to grab power, but this happens under governments of all ideologies.
@@stephengray1344 appreciate the response and some valid points!
Overall, we would agree, lets take care of our planet for God's glory. But, we can have common sense and have eyes wide open toward other forces pulling for extremes on it.
Keep talking about contraversial issues! I'd love to hear you discuss old earth - young earth stuff on the channel
15:04 Your comparison between 1956-1976 VS 2011-2021 is comparing a very cold period with a very warm period. However, look at 1900-1940 - this was a very warm period also - even warmer than more recently and with much less CO2 in the atmosphere. If you look at graphs of CO2 vs average temp over very long periods you see that CO2 changes FOLLOW changes in temp. In other words, in the past at least, changes in average temperature may have caused changes in CO2. Increasing CO2 you might be aware is greening the Earth - which is not a bad thing! Of course CO2 is changing partly because of fuel consumption but the point is that temperature is independent of CO2 but maybe not the other way around.
Love the video as always! You referenced this at the end of your video, the ability to care about multiple things at once. But my only concern is, like with Pope Francis (a lot of people might disagree), you lose the heart of your message, and our message is the Gospel. The Gospel, at least to me, is about the orientation of being or loves. First the love of God, then all other loves necessarily take their rightful place within your attention. Fighting climate change has been turned into a summum bonum type love, part in parcel of the wider social justice movement. Of course, CC is an important issue but if we were to rank order societies' loves at the moment and the issues corresponding with said love, I would think its all out of whack and in chaos. But, once again, great video and I am glad I heard a reasonable Christian take on this issue!
I agree. I'm in STEM, and I love studying into the natural world and the cosmos and how it reflects God, and how we should care for it. I also think that we should be very careful to not get swept up in whatever worldly approach the world may take, which exalts the creation and shuns the Creator. It's important that we approach this topic with a proper reverence and perspective.
I’m not too worried about climate change, and tend to think lots of it is a government power grab, but no clue why Gavin was attacked so much over this video. This seemed very tame and modest to me.
I agree. He is just giving his conviction in this area after studying it. He has a biblical principle of being good stewards of what God has given us.
He's saying that no matter where you land, be open to at least a possibility of an idea that disagrees with your own. To study this topic before you land on a conclusion.
It’s because of what you say about a lot of it being a government power grab. Megan Basham points this out and says that Ortlund is a bit naive and likely influenced by pastors in bed with the government agencies and activists who want more government overreach.
It seems you aren’t consuming material on the controversy that actually deals with the contents of the book at the center of it.
@@KMANelPADRINO But he doesn't really recommend any big government plan to tackle climate change-he actually mentions technological innovation as the solution, which is often contrary to big government intervention. He is simply saying that if climate change is true, then Christians should care about it, and there is evidence for climate change we need to take seriously and debate seriously. What is threatening about that? What is his trespass? What if his thesis was "Climate change is real, and the only thing that will stop it is a smaller government, so techological innovation and local private action can take place." Would you be similarly threatened?
@@gabrielrenfro4417
That isn’t true. Virtually all popular technological solutions are sponsored by lobbyists who are pushing for government mandates.
Also, nothing I said implies that I’m threatened. In fact, you took the time to postulate a reply to my reply- a reply replete with falsehood concerning the nature of green energy technological innovations and the very scientific source that Ortlund has been citing in this entire video.
You may as well go to a Human Rights Campaign rally and try and convince everyone there that they are not interested in changing policy, just in changing hearts and minds.
Your audio is a much better quality now. I’m sorry that author got you so wrong and I hope she rescinds. Praying for both sides.
Oh my gosh! Yes!!!! Finally a Christian who speaks out about this. Praise the Lord. I never understood what is wrong about, and why aren’t we trying harder to be, good stewards of God’s creation.
Very disappointing, it isnt wise to assume someone who doesn't share your opinion hasn't "hit the books". The biggest impact you could make with this video is have it translated to chinese and make some headway over there, the hysteria is the real issue. I dont know anyone advocating for oil spills, ways to waste gasoline, or garbage in the streets.
Edit: how about we provide a photo of the sea level rising, side by side comparison. If the water has risen as you say I promise I would change how I see this topic, if it hasn't would it change yours?
7:22 I came here to get your views directly from you. I dont have a side to pick. I never heard of you before this controversy, nor have I ever read anything Megan Bashan has written. I just want to know whete the truth is. However, I have only listened thus far and I hear you saying that people don’t endorse the climate change agenda because they have not done a full complete study of the issue. Also, you imply that those who aren't convinced about climate change aren’t interested in being good srewards of the Earth that God gave us. That's rather condescending and somewhat insulting.
I've actually looked at a lot of the science to make up my mind. I've done a deep study. I also try to be a good steward of the Earth. I recycle. I conserve water. I avoid wasting energy. I would use local plants if I had a yard. Etc. Not believing the climate change rhetoric doesn't make me unimformed or a bad steward.
I really, really appreciate this video. And I also appreciate what youve said about covid. You and other pastors need to keep pushing this, even if it causes strife within your churches. And it will. I do not want Ezekiel's vision to be more than an image (but I expect it will be).
What did Dr. Ortlund say about covid?
Great read for Christian perspective on climate change: Weathering Climate Change by Dr. Hugh Ross. It is a balanced and sound biblical and scientific perspective - offering simple and effective solutions that wont destroy the economy.
Hi Gavin, I just viewed your video. I appreciate the fact that your heart centered on issuing an appeal to fellow Christians about climate change.
In my view, you derailed your own efforts by stating that being pro-life includes a concern for climate change. That is a common trope employed by the secular progressives and the corporate press in our culture to avoid reckoning with the evil of murdering the unborn, and to create a false moral equivalence between abortion and climate change.
In your own words, you described yourself as a pastor. Therefore, you need to do much better than what you did in this video. I implore you as your fellow brother in Christ to do another video issuing a retraction of the above trope.
To say that if one is pro-life that they’d be equally concerned with climate change is morally offensive. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand that shouldn’t characterize us followers of Christ.
After having made it to the end, I would love to see an update to this video where Pastor Gavin engages with some experts in the field who disagree on the implications of what these phenomena are. This is not irenic in the way that many of the interdenominational discussions Gavin hosts and engages in. I would appreciate an update here.
There are essentially no experts that disagree that climate change exists and that it is human influenced. Virtually all major scientific organizations worldwide, including NASA, NOAA, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), agree that human activities are significantly impacting the climate.
There are a couple rogue politically funded climate sciences, you'll find one or two out there. But 99% of us are pretty comfortably aware that climate is changing and that our emissions are influencing that.
Good point. It appears from the video that Gavin has only listened to one side.
He thinks about so-called Climate Change every day?
Here's some other issues I'd rather my pastor think about every day:
The number of people in the US lost and unsaved.
The rise of LGBTQ in our society.
The amount of sexual trafficking in the US (number 1 or 2 in the world).
800,000 abortions a year in the US.
The many children growing up in fatherless households.
You do realize this is just one video out of many apologetics and theology videos right?
So, you want to dictate what another thinks? My, My, Aren't you charitible?!
Great stuff Gavin. This has been on my mind the last several years.
Doesn't it make sense if we were entrusted with dominion over the earth that we can have a great effect upon it, for better or for worse?
If we believe in things like the fall of humanity, original sin, and total depravity, shouldn't we expect to see at least some abuse and bad stewardship?
For the life of me, I can't see what in Christianity is inherently opposed to this.
I am aware of a stance that global warming i.e. climate change is as bad as it is because people are stepping away from God. Not just the unsaved, but the Assembly as well. If the Assembly (Church) takes the position that it is Israel, it must take into account that catastrophes happen also because of the transgressions of the Assembly.
Right on Jonathan. Unfortunately it seems like the socio-political factors often influence us more than our theology.
Did he say 50 million years ago? Were you there to measure the temperature that long ago?
Clearly we are supposed to be good stewards of the planet, and I try to buy fuel efficient vehicles, conserve energy, recycle, etc. Unfortunately, when you follow the money (to renewable sources and batteries) big business and government (crony capitalism) seem to want us to destroy other parts of the planet (mining heavy metals for batteries that we may or may not recycle well) rather than entertaining multiple options (hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear, etc)
The last time I checked hydrogen fuel cells were not yet a viable mass technology. Nuclear energy has other environmental problems (which is why it hasn't traditionally been pushed by the environmentalist movement). At the moment, renewables and batteries are the cheapest and easiest way to provide like-for-like replacements for the main reasons we burn fossil fuels (electricity and transport). The environmentalist movement has a tendency to push for more systematic changes (e.g. replacing personal cars with walking, cycling, and public transport). But obviously there's less profit to be made in changing things in those ways - so big business and governments influenced by them are more likely to push more consumerist solutions.
@@stephengray1344 My point is that we are not pursuing hydrogen cells, or cleaner nuclear, or other ways to clean carbon dioxide emissions. We are headed down this path, perhaps without thinking through the destruction this single solution will bring in 50 years. Too often our rush to make a profit (though I am a capitalist), backed by political influence, has major negative side effects that were not predicted. A great example is switching from paper to plastic. Paper is a renewable resource (crop), plastic is polluting the planet. The fact that we use wood pulp instead of hemp or some other crop is another example of political influence over industry (with the help of the media, William Hearst). I will be long dead before the ramifications play out, but I have concerns for the folks who are still around.
@@mrcavalieri I agree with the principle behind your concerns (and think that that motive is why we have environmental problems). I'm just saying that a large part of the reason we are taking the kind of approaches we are is because we can't assume that technologies we want to develop will be developed soon enough to be practical. I also think that because policy in Western countries is strongly influenced by the wishes of big business and the very wealthy, solutions to climate change tend to be of the "replace something with the nearest equivalent technology" rather than thinking about how we could reshape society to make it easier for people to make more environmentally responsible decisions.
I’ve learned a lot about church history in a short time by watching Gavin’s videos. I’m impressed by his patient tone on every subject he tackles, even when some people disagreeing with him are bombastic and shrilll. If Gavin believes global climate change is happening does that put him beyond the pale of orthodoxy? If so that is a very different perspective on orthodoxy (small o - what is foundational or essential to our faith). I’m not sure climate change is really happening, but if someone believes it is that does not make him a heretic, not even close. I honestly don’t know the science on this particular subject. The ironic thing is that Gavin is constantly reminding Protestants (which many of us are) what is essential about our faith. He had researched complex issues in enormous depth, using original sources. Then he makes one video about a controversial political issue and people start doubting his faith.
Whether or not the earth is warming, or whether humans are the primary cause of that warming, should be outside of the realm of politics. What we choose to do about it is where politics come in. Gavin didn't say what we should do about it, so I'd say this video was just about completely apolitical
Ice melting does not make the oceans more acidic. Ice would slightly dilute the oceans but otherwise have no effect.
CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause deforestation. It actually helps forests grow faster. So many lies so quickly, it's hard to keep up! (22:09)
ice melt absolutely does increase acidity. If you google it you will find dozens of articles discussing this. If you dispute this point you would need some kind of argument, not just an assertion. Also, I never said "CO2" causes deforestation.
@@TruthUnites Pure water has a pH of 7. Ocean water currently has a pH of 8.1. Adding *pure water* will lower the pH by slightly diluting the basicity, but that isn't the same as making it more acidic. The argument is that diluting some of the alkalinity will reduce the buffering capacity of the water thereby allowing a tiny increase in carbonic acid (from CO2) to have a slightly greater effect. There may be a tiny effect here, limited mostly to the surface near the melting ice, where coral reefs certainly don't live.
Bust just like almost no one ever discusses the ideal concentration of CO2 (I have argued that it's somewhere between 600-700 ppm), no one discusses the ideal pH of the oceans. It's always assumed that any change is bad.
@@logoschristianacademy6044 the ideal concentration, and temperature of earth by association, is the one that we've adapted to. The one that we live in now.
Who would ever make the argument that a warmer planet would be a good thing for humanity, even at the expense of cities like Miami, ending up beneath the ocean due to rising sea level?
We already know what the ideal climate is. It's one that we currently live in that won't bake us alive. And the same goes for the atmosphere.
A little CO2 might be ok, but changing the chemistry of the atmosphere is also problematic. As noted above, increased CO2 dissolved in the ocean produces carbonic acid. This is harmful for marine ecosystems. We of course are dependent on fish for food, so it's not an area that we should willfully tamper with.
Coral reefs are currently in decline, in part, for this reason, as an example.
@@logoschristianacademy6044great, this is perfect. So you think that the ideal CO2 concentration is between 600 and 700. So let's say 650. Currently, our atmospheric concentration is at about 420ppm and it's increasing at about 3 ppm per year.
So by your standard of ideal, in about 70-80 years, we will have reached the ideal concentration.
So what exactly is your plan for stopping CO2 increases in about 70-80 years once we've reached this ideal concentration?
@@logoschristianacademy6044 and CO2 rate of increase is accelerating too. So, 80 years to reach 650 is a fair estimate.
So, what. You think we should all just sit around and not do anything for another 80 years until we reach the perfect 650ppm concentration? And then, that's when the topic will become important and then we should begin investing options to mitigate further increases?
Nobody worry about marine life collapsing due to ocean acidification for another 80 years, everyone got it? Everyone needs to wait until we get into the ideal atmospheric conditions, then we can start talking about electric vehicles and deforestation, and wind turbines etc.
But before then? Well, you guys are just alarmists.
The Arctic ice cap? Ah it's ok, we didn't need that anyway. Forget the polar bears, they can swim to Canada, they'll be fine. Fish changing migratory patterns in the south China sea, what could go wrong?
Crops that are climate sensitive? Ah it's ok, farmers in the Dakota's can just move up to Canada for fertile soil, it's fine. They won't mind us moving on.
Oh and those people in Mexico? Well, if it gets too hot for them, they'll be fine, don't worry about it.
Rising sea levels around Florida, much of which is already at sea level and suffers from flooding.
In 80 years, thats when we can start talking about this. Anytime sooner? Well, you're just a pastor for sale.
Fellow Christian apologist / Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross has published an excellent multidisciplinary book on the topic: “Weathering Climate Change.” There’s a lot more involved than one might imagine; and as usual, politicians and celebrities are a poor source of accurate scientific information.
I love this video, and it's exactly the sort of thing Christians ought to be doing more of. I'm convinced that fear and stubbornness drives much of our intellectual suppression, which in turn keeps us from engaging in our contexts with wisdom and intention. I write about this kind of thing on my blog all the time. I'm very pro Christian critical thinking!
I am going out on a limb here and just going to risk it you know!! I just have this completely unscientific gut feeling that when I stand before Christ he isn’t going to ask why I didn’t do more about climate change. Gavin sounds like he is one of those folks that believe that human beings are fundamentally good. I need someone to do a whole video proving to me that there is scientific consensus. Who are all these scientists? I have heard that phrase a million times and I am just supposed to believe it?
Who are these scientists? The Geological Society of America, The Geological Society of London, The European Geosciences Union, The National Association of Geoscience Teachers, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, The American Institute of Physics, The Royal Society, The US National Academy of Sciences, among many many others.
@@jjoesmith331- went to the first one and read there position paper. Not altering my life based on people who think they know what CO2 levels were 3 million years ago. Maybe they should offer semester long classes where they teach the common man how they know that. Not buying that anyone knows what CO2 levels were 3 million years ago just because they measured it in ice. Science is about observation and no one observed anything 3 million years ago.
@@paulfrancis8118 ok, well don't ask for proof of scientific consensus if you are just going to ignore scientific consensus anyway. Don't blame the scientific community for your own lack of awareness of how the earth is known to be ancient. Nobody is obligated to educate you.
Love your videos, Dr. Ortlund. May I kindly suggest that you focus on your (impressive) areas of expertise? The climate change issue is a viper's nest of lies and distortions and very dark agendas. It's no area in which Christians need to or ought to "engage"
Living in the south, it's incredibly frustrating when the same people that deny climate change are the ones who think people shouldn't complain about working outside in 100°+ temperatures in the summer... 😞
I very much appreciate you making this video and being brave enough to post it. My intuition is that fear of "big government," i.e., the fear of ceding our individual freedoms in favor of a collective response lies at the heart of much US-style conservative opposition to public policy & regulatory responses to climate threat. To some extent, I understand this sentiment and share it. However, if we are for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," we need to acknowledge that the environmental conditions necessary for life are prerequisite to the opportunity for liberty and happiness. It therefore concerns me that We The People may no longer be capable of mounting a substantial collective response to any kind of collective threat, especially if that response requires shared sacrifice. If so, our instinct to choose liberty over life (when we could have both) makes us weaker as a nation, not stronger.
Mr Ortlund, at the 24:44 mark of this video, you claim you don’t know what will happen and that you’re not a scientist, then you say this is a very important matter practically in the same breath. Which is it? You spent over 20 minutes trying to convince me only to hedge your bet? Are you pulling a Pensees?
Thank you so much for this 🙏🏻 more Christians need to be talking about this …
I came upon this video by chance. I am the city councillor in charge of sea defences in a very low lying UK city and am also owner of a small farm in Africa just north of the equator. In both roles I see the effects of climate change. The sea level is rising at an increasing rate, certainly faster than any time since records began. On the farm over the past couple of decades we have experienced longer and more damaging periods of drought. The rapidity of change without a corresponding natural cause forces the conclusion that this is man made. As a Christian I see arrogance as when people built the Tower of Babel. and ignorant inactivity as before the Flood. We, who are believers need to be prophets in our own generation and give a lead to our communities in addressing the causes of this growing , self induced problem, not least because it's effects will affect, more than any others, the poor of the Earth.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. - Romans 1:25
Could you please be specific as to how you think that verse is germane to the topic? You might be implying that any good faith attempt at wise stewardship of the environment is idolatry, but I’d rather not assume that was your meaning unless you say so yourself.
@@gracenotes5379 I'm not at liberty to know which actions are truely wise stewardship of the environment, but there is definitely those that make climate activism their religion and moral foundation. It has become too convinent to convict alleged heretics. Any suspicion of the doctrines widely promoted can be seen as an enemy of the world.
Thank you for your insights Gavin. I’ve often been discouraged by the church’s response to climate change here in North America. I really appreciate you bringing up the connection with justice.
The rapid fire alarmism around (21:57) is mostly just false.
The increase in wildfires is mostly due to an increase in arson.
Droughts are no more severe than they have been in the past, and many semi-arid regions are greening because of the increased CO2 which reduces the water requirements of many plants.
There are no more or more severe hurricanes than there have been in the past, if you look at the data. There is more damage dollar wise because there are more structures to be damaged. But hurricanes significantly decreased when Obama was president, probably because of geoengineering and creating clouds off the east coast of Africa, lowering Atlantic Ocean temperatures.
Oceans are not 30% more acidic. They're fine. Corals are not (allegedly?) dying because the water levels are higher. They are allegedly going to die because the oceans will be slightly more acidic. It's sad when a climate alarmist like Gavin doesn't even understand the talking points he's spewing.
After Basham’s book was finally released, one of the earliest major responses came from former California pastor Gavin Ortlund, who now heads a ministry called Truth Unites in Tennessee. This was kind of odd because Ortlund is at best a minor figure in the book. Basham briefly discusses a video he did on climate change. She critiques it with facts and figures. Ortlund could have simply ignored what Basham wrote. Or he could have responded to her substantive criticisms of what he called the “consensus” view. He did neither.
Instead, he went ballistic with one and then two videos charging Basham with all sorts of malfeasance in misrepresenting what he said. Although he spoke in his usual mellow and laid-back style, his actual accusations were strident and over the top. He accused her of “dishonesty,” “distortion,” “spin,” and “bearing false testimony.” As I have explained elsewhere, I think Basham was mostly accurate in what she wrote. I also think Ortlund seems oversensitive, too quick to express hurt and take offense. The most interesting thing to me is how Ortlund’s responses served to distract attention from the main claims made by Basham in her climate change chapter. I’m not alleging that this was Ortlund’s intention. But his overwrought response provided a convenient excuse for people to avoid grappling with Basham’s critique.
I agree with Gavin's responses to Megan. But I would agree with your point about distracting from her main points.
I am an evangelical Christian and a scientist in the UK. I and many other Christians here do not deny man-induced climate change, nor our duty to protect God's creation.
Most of my Christian friends and colleagues are also old earthers.
I think this definition of what evangelicals have to believe is thing of the US.
You contradict yourself. You say our duty is to protect God's Creation yet your friends refute God's Creation and instead believe in the atheistic old earth of billions of years. I pray one day you come to the Truth.
@@xenofonz7640 climate change is real. The earth is billions of years old. As Gavin says, about climate change, most scientists agree about old earth and there is no conspiracy. And, also as Gavin says, we generally don't like to say something is definitely true, but we are pretty sure about this.
Regarding God creating the universe, this is something I strongly believe, based on the evidence, but it is not something I can easily prove. In fact, I could present all the evidence to someone, as I often have, and they can see exactly where I am coming from, but without revelation from God, they cannot believe. Faith is a gift.
If you want to deny strong evidence and believe in a young earth (which I assume you do) then as far as I am concerned you are welcome to. This is not salvific.
But please understand that it is possible to be evangelical, Bible believing an an old earther. And many of us in the UK are. And many people throughout history have been.
By all means pray for me. Always happy to be prayed for. Thank you.
@@xenofonz7640 old earth is not incompatible with Scripture and God as a creator and it is naive to say otherwise. This is not an issue that should divide Christians though. I think young earth is very wrong, and not a little embarassing, but a better way for us is to accept we might be wrong - but that we are convinced of salvation through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection and focus on sharing the Good News
@@sphagbog That's OK, we can disagree on such matters while still being faithful followers of Jesus Christ. The main difference though between you and I is I don't doubt God's great power. God could have created the Universe in its current form in a split second but chose to do it in God's way.
@@xenofonz7640 that's great. Though I also don't doubt God's great power. I also believe He could have created the universe in its current form in a split second. However I don't think He did. Partly because I don't think He would deceive us with historical clues. But i might be wrong. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on lots of things 😀
I appreciate your willingness to address this controversial subject! As someone who hasn't delved too deeply into these issues, I am wondering what you think of the Cornwall Alliance? Their founder and president is E. Calvin Beisner, a fairly well-known Christian apologist. While they take creation stewardship seriously, they also seem to be more critical towards the claims of modern manmade climate change. So I would be curious to know your thoughts about this organization and their landmark documents.
Really enjoyed this video, Gavin!! I’m always encouraged and challenged by your winsome approach and your search for truth coupled with humility. Thanks for your time and effort into this ministry - it’s such a blessing!
Really appreciate this Gavin, I agree that most evangelicals (and people in general) uncritically form their opinions on this issue via politics and culture. I agree it should be talked about and studied more, we all want a cleaner healthier climate.
-One reason I sympathize with so called "climate skeptics" is that the political context in which this is brought up often brings with it hyper-sensational alarmism met with either no solutions or solutions that seem completely preposterous or unhelpful (AOC's green new deal) comes to mind to be specific.
-I recommend looking into Bjorn Lomborg's work on this issue. He has lots of videos and a couple books on the issue 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' is one... He seems to have a very balance take between alarmism, skepticism, and practical solutions.
-Another point worth bringing up as Christians is God's sovereignty. Christians should not despair about the climate in the way that popular media figures often do. Doesn't mean we shouldn't address the problem as best we can, but like you said, despair is not warranted by the Christian
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Will!
I agree with this sentiment. As Christians we're certainly called to steward the environment well, but so many of the "solutions" proposed are extremely economically impactful to the middle and lower classes disproportionately as well as anti-human in sentiment. I worry initiation of some of these policies will be a slippery slope to more nefarious initiatives.
Job
@@matthew7491 Which "solutions" are you thinking about? My experience of the environmentalist movement is that they tend to be concerned about the impact on poorer people (who will be the most affected by the impacts of climate change). That's why they tend to focus on more systematic changes rather than quick technological fixes. Which is also why they tend towards left-wing views on economic issues (and is a factor causing the Republican Party -- who are, by global standards, right-wing extremists on economics - has been so strongly opposed to taking action on the issue).
@@stephengray1344 Carbon taxes, gas taxes, regulations making ownership of older cars more expensive (SMOG in California as an example), just to name a few. Not to mention regulations on manufacturing where the costs get passed down. Namely solutions that target individuals.
Thank you for this thoughtful engagement with CC, Gavin! Really hopeful your video will be a catalyst for folks in evangelical spaces to be talking more about this massive topic. Excellent example of the evangelical unbundling of topics from their long-held ideological tribes and examined in a fresh way thru a biblical lens.
Thanks a lot Will!
People seem to have really polarised feelings about this even here on the comment section.. I'm not from the States and don't see climate change as a left/right issue but it is so common sensely obvious where I live that it's amazing to me that people "don't believe in it". Maybe we should try to find more fruitful approaches? I found Gavins input reasonable. It should not be either close eyes entirely or go to "neomarxist" ways.. There should be a third option. See the thing and invent good, creative solutions, that should be possible. That's what Gavin proposes here as I hear it. I definitely don't find it reasoned to make him as an example in that kind of a book.
I listened to Megans interview in babylon bee and was displeased. She had bashing "mean girls" style and bundled up all kinds of things. She brought up her reasons to accuse Gavin: she want's to eat her beef and cool her house with a good conscience! Now, is that a godly reason to throw brother under a train? Where as I believe that she can have some really important observations about other things and should not be overlooked, the way we talk about things is important. To me her taking Gavin as an example diminishes her reliability. There can how ever be some truth ih her other observations and they should be examined carefully but in a godly manner. It's really important how christians communicate things, disagreeing is ok but not by what ever means.
I second your sentiment. I also have a different view from Gavin, but there is no need to be a mean girl.
Interesting how denying a global flood leads to climate change alarmism... (9:28)
Genesis describes ancient near east cosmology, not modern science.
@@CDK008-hm3ue True science points to a solar system wide, accelerated radioactive decay heat driven catastrophe in the recent past, including massive thermal expansion cracks on the moon and Mars, the total mantle overturn of Venus and Earth, including a global flood on Earth.
I’m only listening due to Ms. Basham’s book. I’m going to check out her book and see your latest videos again to see what you were defending yourself against. But I must say, I’m 18 minutes into this video and you have not been very kind to skeptics and unbelievers in your opinion.
It is so refreshing to see other Reformed voices talking about this.
This was helpful!
Thanks for posting this. It took guts. I'm interested if you've listened to any of Bjorn Lomborg's take on climate change. If so, I'd be interested in your opinion. He seems to take a much more leveled and sensible approach of what we should focus on... Things that actually might help, especially when it comes to mitigating the consequences. Unfortunately, that's not what the bad actors are focusing on. They're using it to promote their own agenda, which isn't what's best for the planet. In all this, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary because we're living in a world blinded by sin and corrupt motivations. At the same time we need to recognize our own propensities toward sin and not let our skepticism blind us to what is really happening. God knows (thank God!). I pray for clear heads to prevail on this issue.
Another great video. Appreciate that you tackle difficult issues and with such a careful and thoughtful style - and yes hopeful too. This topic is important and urgent and we should be talking about it. You are providing a model for having difficult conversations at a time when the temptation is to avoid having them because of the level of anger and vitriol that often follow. You are doing important work, Gavin.
Let's first argue the premise: Is Climate Change a Real Issue to the world?
Yes Christians should not shy away from this. Well if you are so concerned about man-made climate change then you better tell China, India, Japan and many other countries to stop building in total hundreds of new coal fire power stations. In any case mankind only pumps a tiny fraction of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to what nature does. Your trust in climate science, which is fake is actually very sad. As a scientist I've studied it for over 20 years and I can tell you that there are many other scientists who disagree with the IPCC, which is a UN funded fraud. The push to reduce CO2 emissions is one of the biggest frauds ever constructed by man. Apart from being self-destructive to a nation as being shown in Europe, the move to using solar farms, wind farms, electric vehicles and associated batteries is also one of the most environmentally destructive acts ever conducted by mankind. Already they are causing massive disposal issues when they have to be manufactured and eventually replaced. If one were to believe in the climate science then the obvious solution is nuclear power. It's the only non-CO2 emitting power source we have that provides reliable power round the clock. If you want to continue to destroy a nation then by all means push for so called Green energy. BTW, Europe is now looking towards going back to nuclear energy and other sources sources of fossil fuels now that Russia is at risk of shutting off the supply of gas and oil to Europe. We have much bigger issues to deal with than climate change. One of them is God's wrath during/after the Tribulation. It's all in the Bible. Stick to what you know best; the Gospel.
I agree with your arguments, but I think it would help to be slightly less confrontational
Well said, and I don't think you came across as confrontational at all.
I agree with Megan Basham.
Why? I don't agree with Gavin on climate change but is he really a "Shepherd for Sale?" Putting his name in a book with a title like that is appalling. Who's paying him off?
She didn’t say that. Go read her book. She said he is an example of a pastor who has been influenced. She never said he was paid off.
Question. When Jesus sent his apostles out into the world, did he ever tell them to give a message about the earth preservation? What about Paul, what was his mission? In Paul's letters to the churches did he ever admonish them for not caring for the planet? What about Revelation? Surely John wrote about what the spirit said to the churches and why they should repent for not being good stewards of the planet.
The message Christians must give to the people of this world is this. That mankind dies because of sin and the earth groans like a woman in labour because the sin has caused the earth to be cursed. The only salvation man has is Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of the whole world, once for all. Furthermore, that the earth and its future is not something that we need to focus on. The two beasts are going to be in power soon, followed by the kingdom coming and 1000 years of Jesus ruling the world. Then there will be a new heaven and new earth. This is God's plan and His will, and if we are in Christ it will be our future.
Gen 8:22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, heat and cold, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.
I keep hearing different views on this and I have some doubts about your side on climate change itself. But You CLEARLY state that we should discuss this issue without being disrespectful, and I would also say without misrepresenting each other which is unfortunately what Megan Basham did. She may have thought that she was representing you correctly but she wasn't careful enough and should have known better that to take three word from one place in the video and ram them together with four word in another part. In all that I have watched of your videos you are always kind and respectful and I find you to be an excellent example of how Christians should relate to each other even when we disagree. I recently saw an excellent discussion on the CZcams channel "Trinity Radio" where Braxton Hunter moderated a discussion where you were defended by Chris Date and Josh Klein was supporting somewhat Megan Basham and they came to a pretty decent understanding. Maybe Braxton hunter and Trinity Radio would be a good forum for you and Megan to have a good discussion and we could get this whole thing sorted out.
For years, this has been my sentiment, which is quickly squashed by both fellow Christians and spiritual leaders.
You are the first conservative Christian who has given my views and frustrations a voice and has expressed every one of my concerns.
Why is it that the same sola scriptura Christians that hold theology so dear, seem to also be dismissive of every scriptural reference to our mandate to care for this earth?!
I agree that it is also a way in which we love our neighbor as ourselves.
Having said that, don't you think that it's hard to sift through the evidence and figure out what's true versus what's being hyped up by those with a political agenda?
I think that is why, as frustrated as I am about the nonchalance of this issue, I'm also perplexed about how to embrace this issue with clarity.
Do you see my dilemma?
Agreed that most lay people can’t wrestle with the raw academic literature, but what do you suppose is the motivation that would drive an overhyped political response from the left? Where is the political advantage in promoting shared sacrifice, prudence and delayed gratification in a society that rewards those who promise bread and circuses ? Climate scientists may want more research dollars from the public purse, but the majority is not so foolish as to abandon evidence-based methods to that end (some painful exceptions not withstanding).
I agree that it is very hard to know what is true and what is not. I think it is the hardest part of living in the age of the internet and social media. We can all disagree about the specifics of climate change effects, but still agree that we need to improve our environment and care about the effects we have on the earth. We need to listen with an open heart to both sides
This comment is not to disagree with the video's premise, but to raise concern about the uncritical way you depict "science" at around minute 17:00 in the video.
While it is true that the CONCEPT of science as a discipline is build on slow, methodical, conservative study, the FIELD of science, as with any other longtime profession and/or field, is subject to "the human element". As we see with anything, a manmade thing is only as good as it's operators. And I think it is evident through the operators of science that the structure of science as a whole has fallen victim to mass amounts of human bias, pride, and ideological shifts.
I am not necessarily saying there is a nefarious plot, but I think a reasonable picture of science is that the likelihood that a move toward mass consensus can be fueled by sociopolitical movements is valid. It isn't conspiratorial, most things in the world aren't. But "group-think" at work in this field made up of humans is just as valid an explanation.
Science is a field made of large institutions, managing billions of research dollars. The integrity of the scientific process is not as in tact as you pain the picture to be. As with something like big-pharma, or the medical industry. Doctors aren't nefarious, but when large institutions filled with billions of someone else's dollars get involved in fields it doesn't necessarily hold up well.
I am not saying Global Warming isn't real. I don't actually think that. But I do think a skeptical eye toward the scientific community would be somewhat wise, as the initial integrity of the scientific process I do not believe is as intact as some would believe. There are most definitely individuals with integrity, but I am more referring to the system as a whole.
I couldn't disagree more with you dr Gavin. Still, you asked to sit down and talk, with respect and wisdom, so I'm willing to do that. Hopefully you are too. Let's dig into what you've said here.
3:15 "There's this clear charge of stewardship over creation."
It should go without saying, that Jesus's commissions and New Testament guidelines left to us by the apostles are much more current and relevant to us than Old Testament commandments, especially those given to men even before even Noah's covenant. Every covenant has context which makes its commandments relevant. I mean, multiplying is a part of the very same verse that talks about stewardship. But you just said, in this very video, that we should think about how many people should be inhabiting the Earth rationally - in other words, you wouldn't agree that it is still one of our core responsibilities to just have as many children as possible to literally populate the Earth. That's clearly already been done. I and many other Christians would also say that man's dominion over earth is also something that came into past. I'm not saying we should just exploit and pollute the Earth as we please - but multiplying and dominating the Earth was a commandment given to first humans so that our species would become a dominant force in the world, and it has - it's hardly connected to the massive Climate Change Activist movement we see today. A bit of a stretch I'd say. Evangelizing and saving souls of people who are about to go to hell is WAY more important for us today. This Earth isn't something we'll be living on forever - personally, or as a species. It's a temporary place on a way to infinite Kingdom of God. If there's ever a choice between taking care for God's Kingdom and this Earth - we shouldn't hesitate for a second. One is infinitely more important, and yet, horribly neglected when compared to massive movements such as economic activism. Almost every major western company in the world is already engaged on many levels into economic activism. I wonder if we as Christians should actually invest our time to add to that, or perhaps, should we focus on a far more important task, that nobody but Christians is willing to do for us, hmmm? And most of all: Lord is coming -MARANATHA, we pray he comes SOON - to destroy this Earth and create a new one. It's his role to renew the Earth. It was never given to us as a primary task in the first place. "Let the dead bury the dead". We have a lot more important things to do. That's my opinion and I think it's absolutely Biblical. But let's keep looking at the issue.
3:20 "Love your neighbor, that implies how we think about future generations"
That's another example of stretching the Scripture to fit a narrative. In the context, loving your neighbor means exactly that - loving people around you. It's not our primary job to provide physical goods or qualities for future generations - it's Gods. Once again - God's Kingdom over any and all plans we have for this life and this Earth, which are all temporary and to be soon swiped aside. New Testament writers very strictly encourage people to NOT think too far ahead because of that.
Matthew 6:34 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” - Literally an opposite to dedicating your life to preserving the future of our Earth.
Jacob 4 :15 "Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow let’s go into this city and spend a year there, trade, and make a profit.” Yet you don’t know what your life will be like tomorrow. For what is your life? For you are a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. For you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will both live, and do this or that.” But now you glory in your boasting. All such boasting is evil. To him therefore who knows to do good and doesn’t do it, to him it is sin."
Acts 4:34-35 "For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
4:15 "Just how much Scripture teaches God cares about animas"
Bingo. GOD cares about animals. All of the examples you gave point out to God taking care of them, not humans. (Matthew 6:26: Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your HEAVENLY FATHER feeds them) Is it our primary job to care about them? No. GOD will provide for animals. We, Christians, have to first and foremost take care of the Gospel being shared to every human on this earth while trying to humbly live out our lives in service to God and his kingdom. NOT in the service to animals or the planet that is soon to be discarded by him. Once again, I'm not saying that's an open invitation to selfishly slaughter entire species off the face of the Earth either - but making it Christian's obligation is just going too far. That's just not what the Bible says.
8:00 "Basic science behind Climate Change makes a lot of sense"
I'm sorry dr Gavin, but that's just not true. YES, the global temperature is rising. But like you've noticed yourself, temperatures on the globe are rising and falling over the course of our history, so that's hardly an argument for global activism against it.
You're saying that the reason it's dangerous this time around is because in the past, it was rising a lot slower. But that's just according to scientific models, recreation of the past. We do not KNOW if it was rising slower in the past. We assume it did based on what we see in the ground. When we look at the past, we can never say we know anything for sure. All we have is theories about how do we interpret what we find. This comes down to what you've said about science in general - the majority consensus thing. Yes, it's true that majority consensus of scientists agrees that the temperature today is rising faster than it did in the past, and that it rises too fast and is therefore dangerous. But you are missing a very important detail in your defense for modern science. Modern science is agenda-driven. There's majority consensus today that homosexual behavior is natural, healthy and is determined upon birth, and not by any additional factors. There's majority consensus that a baby in the womb is not a human yet. There was, in the past, majority consensus that black man is less evolved than white man. They used to kill aborigines to show their skulls off in museums as half-apes you know. Scientists are all people. They have their agendas, and vast majority of modern science is controlled by liberals around the whole western world. The amount of money they get to support ecological activism from their governments in itself makes them completely non-credible. If a university employs 20 eco activists and gains 10 million dollars a year for preaching about eco activism, how do you suppose they would treat a discovery that would put some shade on these theories about man-made climate change? Obviously, they would instantly discard it. The reason why there's majority consensus that on all these things is politics and money.
10:00 "Human caused climate-change is a really big problem" And here were are at the end of the line. I've noticed here you didn't give any data at all. Why is that? You were able to quickly provide a graph that proves temperatures are rising globally - but nobody disputes that. There is a major dispute however when it comes to the fact that humans actually are to blame for this, and not natural processes. Once again, you'll just say that's a majority consensus by "science" but since sconce is founded by their governments to say exactly that, so that the money could flow from tax dollars to eco activists and their programs in billons every year, once again, I dare to say that's not a proof of any kind. There IS NO DATA out there that you can give me or anyone, that would prove that humans are the primary cause, or even a notable cause of temperatures rising today. To the contrary. Scientists constantly and consistently FAIL to prove that temperatures rising at the rate they do now provide danger to the planet. 30 years ago they told us we'll be under water by the year 2000.
My summary would be this:
1. It's not a primary obligation of Christians to invest their time, strength and resources to save the planet or animals or future generations. GOD is the one who gives his promise throughout Scripture that he will take care of those things. There's no reason to oppose people who care about such things, but the world is invested in that a great deal, and we, Christians, should focus on a lot more important stuff like the Gospel and guiding believers - a work to be done, that the world won't touch with a stick.
2. Modern science has agendas and is engaged with liberal politics. A lot of things that are "majority consensus" can be, and likely are factually wrong, like they've been in the past many times. Exploring other options than modern science isn't wrong, it's actually necessary to have a full view on many things, and Climate Change is no exception.
3. There are DANGERS to climate change activism that you didn't mention dr Gavin. Scripture provides a lot of very important obligations for us, and climate change activism isn't one of them. People who warp their whole lives around fear for Earth often lose the sight of God's Kingdom and lose sight of what the true war is really about. I know little Christians who care deeply about sharing the Gospel. I know plenty who bought into Climate Change activism and spend most of their day making sure they do not produce unnecessary waste and spend 10 times the money on solar panels or paper accessories than they give to missionaries. That's my experience.
thanks for sharing your thoughts! I don't have time to respond just now but wanted to express my appreciation for the engagement!
Your comment basically reduces to, "God will take care of it." But what if He won't? Are you going to take such a risk? We do not live in heaven, we live in a fallen, separated state. I don't think it's helpful to just say that God will take care of it and then not doing anything ourselves. This mindset is the same as the people who refuse to take their children to the hospital and just pray for them instead. God isn't our personal servant that will do everything we want.
Sure, I agree that climate activism isn't the main goal and purpose for humanity, but why is it problematic to focus on many things, while having the main focus on God still?
@@TruthUnites No problems! I've got plenty of time :) Can wait for a reply
@@x-popone6817 "Your comment basically reduces to, "God will take care of it."
Well, I'd say it would be more fair to include at least one or two more thoughts I've put in there, like Christians having simply much more important obligations that nobody else can do in their stead, for example.
"Are you going to take such a risk? We do not live in heaven, we live in a fallen, separated state. I don't think it's helpful to just say that God will take care of it and then not doing anything ourselves"
How is giving away ANY task to God a risk? God can do anything. More then that, it's SCRIPTURE that encourages giving future troubles to God, especially caring for nature, and instead focusing on living present life for God and his Kingdom. It's not my idea. If Bible encourages it, why wouldn't it be a good to do just that?
"This mindset is the same as the people who refuse to take their children to the hospital and just pray for them instead."
But God never said that Christians should pray for their children instead of taking them to hospital. The Bible encourages both prayer for the sick, AND the use of medicine. Heck, Bible even includes TRAINING for physicians in the old testament and countless injunctions for keeping personal hygiene. Bible is pro-medicine all the way through. But it is not pro-eco activism. I encourage you to find any actual passages that directly support it or encourage it. Like I motioned in my original comment above, we have to stretch the Bible waaaaay out of its original context to find and scraps for that agenda. I mean how far do you have to dig to find a commandment that would encourage fighting deforestation from passages like "love your neighbor".
"God isn't our personal servant that will do everything we want."
Yes, it's the other way around. It's our job to be God's faithful servants. So when he says to stick to the present rather than worrying about the future of a doomed world and focus on the saving souls, we should do just that.
"Sure, I agree that climate activism isn't the main goal and purpose for humanity, but why is it problematic to focus on many things, while having the main focus on God still?"
Like I said, I have no issues with eco-activism in itself, it's certainly nothing bad to care about clean air and planting new trees and so on. Outside of Christianity and even as a Christian I think you can totally do non-religious things in your spare time. A hobby isn't a sin, and when it's hobby that benefits everyone around, all the better. However, it's also not fair to DEMAND from Christians to involved, or even interested in that either. And that's the tone of videos like this one from Dr. Ortlund. That we are OBLIGATED to do this and that based on passages like such and such. And I'm just point out, that its not true. The Bible points in another direction. Focus on the today, because tomorrow, God may just as well call you to heaven, and ask you how did you do with your work for the Kingdom. He'll ask for the return he's invested in you on his gold talents. He won't be impressed by how many plastic bags you did or didn't use for sure. The only thing Jesus ever did for environment was pollute a lake by sending a herd of pigs into it and pollute some air by killing a perfectly good fig tree just to make a point. People need to stop pretending eco-activism is somewhere hidden in the Bible, because it really just isn't. In the Biblical worldview, the world exist FOR humans. Not humans for the world. NEVER the other way around. Earth is not our home. It's a temporary battlefield for the war against Satan that is going to end in its destruction sooner or later, safeguarding it with your life is in the grand scheme of things just a waste of time.
And last but not least, I do not think encouraging eco-activism to Christians, even as a hobby, is anything helpful, because it never ends as a hobby. The lobby for eco-activism is so powerful and the message so wide-spread everywhere that Christians who get involved are getting completely absorbed by it, and completely set their core Christian responsibilities aside. But that's just my observation. I suppose there are Christians out there who do their fair share for the environment and also are very dedicated missionaries who live out their daily lives full of Holy Spirit. But are you?
Do you pray every day? Do you walk daily with the Spirit, free from daily enslavement to serious sin, for example, pornography? Do you read Scripture every day? Do you share the Gospel regularly or serve in some other way in your Church that allows others to share the Gospel effectively? Are you a faithful husband or wife, or at least do you plan to be, and if so, do you have a rough idea how much time and effort it takes to be one? Are you a hard working employee or a hard working student? How many meaningful relationships with valuable people in your life do you have?
Because you know, all of these things are very strongly, plainly and directly taught in Scripture, as things that should be in the very center of your life. I suppose if you do have all of those things in order, I'd say feel free to be involved in eco-activism or anything else that might take your heart in some other direction. You'll manage. But if you are seriously struggling with those, I'd just say - focus on that first. Our planet is set for Apocalypse soon, and your two hands won't make much difference. Maybe leave it to politicians who can can easily cut the pollution in half with a new regulation and focus on what really matters in your vicinity.
@@mitromney He isn't going to reply to you.
Gavin what you said about less frequent and concentrated rainfall is absolutely correct. Last week in Kerala, India there was a massive landslide that occured as a result of concentrated rainfall, which has been occuring for some years,, more than 500 people died.
A single event doesn't constitute climate. If you think CO2 is causing climate change (I do not) then India and China are going to have to cut back on coal-burning for power. The USA/EU reductions cannot begin to compare with the increases in those two countries. I think India should still use whatever is the most economic means to generate power and learn to build infrastructure in ways that are more resilient - and that is going to require continued economic development which will require coal burning and reduced institutional corruption.
Perhaps India should build better, more resilient infrastructure. Using cheap, available, fossil fuels.
@@l-cornelius-dol what you said is absolutely correct, but not in this context, reliable infrastructure may protect against earthquakes but not agsinst landslides. But measures to prevent such events can be taken, reducing building permits, even though may come at a cost. Kerala is already densely populated and it has a lot of hilly areas, it is impossible to move people from their properties. Also in India we have a unique problem, people cannot easily migrate because people speak different languages in each state. Majority of the people are small business owners or farmers, not higher uneducated, there is no real economic benefit for migrating. Migration within the country comes at a significant cost of the quality of living unless they have a high paying job.
If you want to hear thoughtful opposition to the "scientific consensus" I would listen to Dr. Willie Soon or Christopher Monckton. I really think as christians we need to be careful about how we come to our positions. I think it is best to openly hear both sides. I have a concern with how politicized this topic has become, and the solutions proposed are very impractical. Nuclear energy seems to be the best way to reduce emissions, and yet still it does not get near the attention as solar and wind.
Note: the reason I put scientific consensus in quotation marks is because the consensus is that humans contribute to green house gas emissions. The debate is not that, it is what percentage of warming are people responsible for, is climate change harmful, and what can we do to lower emissions if needed.
There are environmental issues that we should care about more than climate change in my opinion. For instance, windmills killing rare birds to name just one.
Last thing I'll say is that the famous physicist Freeman Dyson is on record saying that global warming is an overall good thing because it is greening the planet due to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
There is debate about precisely how much human activity contributes, but the consensus is that we are the primary cause. There is debate about the level of harm it will cause (which is largely a function of the uncertainty about how quickly we can/will reduce carbon emissions), but the consensus is very clearly that the net effect will be harmful. There is debate about the best way to lower carbon emissions, but the consensus is that we do need to do so.
Studies of wind turbines (which are not the same thing as windmills) have shown that reductions in bird populations are primarily due to disruption during construction. And even the largest estimates of the number of birds killed by wind turbines are less than the estimates of the number of birds killed by flying into a glass window. And climate change is generally thought to be one of the main reasons for the current mass extinction that is currently being observed by naturalists.
@@stephengray1344 Have you looked into the sun's role on climate change? I only listed the wind turbines because it is an example of a downside in building massive wind farms. I don't know where you are getting the consensus that the net effect will be harmful. Even if it's a majority, that doesn't make it true. There are many who are skeptical of the IPCC, from what I know if you doubled the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere you will get 2-2.5 degrees of warming. The globe has been warming since the little ice age a few centuries ago. Nothing catastrophic has happened, the globe has become noticeably greener. They can tell by satellites. The US power grids already has enough problems, solar and wind are too unreliable to become a significant contribution year round. Also look at Germany gives us a warning of what happens when you focus all your as attention to solar and wind to try to reach net zero. Their energy prices are significantly higher than the surrounding countries and their carbon emissions have not decreased as much as other countries. Increasing energy prices hurts the poor, which is why we shouldn't dogmatically follow the consensus. There are plenty examples in history of when the scientific "consensus" was wrong
@@gaberau2479 From what I've read on the sun's role in climate change, there's very little evidence that it's a significant issue. The main impact is the 11-year solar cycle, and if that was the main cause then we'd have seen falling temperatures between about 2000 and 2008.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's not consensus that it will be harmful. The IPCC reports pretty much are the consensus view on the issue, and they absolutely predict net negative consequences - even on the most optimistic scenarios.
The "Little Ice Age" was a regional climatic change (mostly confined to Europe), rather than a global one.
I've not heard any claims about the Earth getting greener? How does this square with the well-established evidence of deforestation and desertification?
All types of electricity have some unreliability. Solar and wind are predictably unreliable (i.e. we can tell when they are going to fail in advance), and well-connected electrical grids (especially using newer smartgrid technology) means that failures in one area can be compensated for by generation in another. The issues with Germany are not the result of trying to reach net zero, they are the result of shutting down all their nuclear plants at once after Fukushima, and replacing them with coal. The fact remains that in most energy markets the cheapest form of electricity is either wind or coal.
Whilst it's theoretically possible that the scientific consensus is wrong, it is extremely unlikely on the basic reality of global warming. We have proven way beyond reasonable doubt that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases. We have good evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide has gone from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution to over 400ppm today. The only possible mechanism for this change that we are aware of is the burning of fossil fuels. And that this is the cause is attested by measurements of carbon-14. Even if the more technical evidence proved to be wrong, the chances of what I've outlined in this paragraph being wrong are minuscule.
@@stephengray1344 If you look at the earth's history, 400ppm is relatively low for all time. What do you think of people like Freeman Dyson, someone who has retired and has no conflicts of interest saying that man emitted CO2 has been a net positive on the overall environment. CO2 makes up 3% of the green house gas effect. 90% is water vapor. The sun has many events that have been shown to correlate with climate. Wind and Solar is not cheaper in the developing world which is the reason why coal plants are still being built. Only with government subsidies is that the case. Weather is not predictable far out. IPCC operates based on models that are not good at predicting the future. Computers have gotten better, but the algorithms used to predict climate are still flawed because they do not take into account the many variables. Climate is too complex to create predictions using those models. Similar to economic models.
@@gaberau2479 The issue is less the temperature level, but more the rate of change. Previous changes in global average temperature took place over thousands of years, this one is taking place over a few decades.
Dyson is on record as saying that he didn't care that much about the issue, and that he wasn't an expert. So I'm not sure that I care that much about his opinion, compared to that of the scientists who have specialised in studying the climate.
Yes, there are other greenhouse gases, and the solar cycle has an effect on the climate, but there's no evidence of the kind of changes in either that could cause the observed change in temperature.
The cheapness of wind and solar has nothing to do with government subsidies, and everything to do with the fact that ongoing costs are minimal, and upfront. I'm not clear which countries you consider developing, but there are some South American countries for whom energy is practically free for half the year because of the high amount of renewables. If we want to bring more energy to developing countries, the best way would to use foreign aid budgets to invest in renewables, and in training locals to maintain them, since then we aren't setting them up to have to buy in oil, gas, or coal.
Yes, climate is complex, but the long-term climate patterns are much easier to model than the chaotic day-to-day changes in weather. And the early climate models have proven broadly accurate so far.
One of the largest problems in Christianity today is the reconciliation of theology and science. It seems quite far now from the days of Thomas Aquinas who described Theology as the queen of the sciences, and yet, here we are. I think that despite the good points you brought forth here, it would serve to have a closer look at the Christian opposition to science.
An illustration for my point: I have an ex-girlfriend whose father was vehemently opposed to various things ending in -ology, and described them as in opposition to God. He was also abusive, and it ended up that as my ex pursued her dream of becoming an anthropologist, she also turned her back on her faith. Now, there's a lot in play there, but her father is an example of the kind of Christian who objects to science as we know it.
The anti-science sentiment is strong within Christianity. We could look no farther than the pseudo-scientific ideas of Flat Earth, but we could also consider the ways in which people cling to Young Earth Creationism as the absolute way in which God created the universe.
For my part, I do count myself as a scientific skeptic, if only because I distrust the emphasis people place on science with respect to how settled it is. Frank Turek of Cross Examined has often said, "Science doesn't say anything; scientists do." I distrust whether the scientists have truthfully presented the data for others to verify their results, independent on any biases they may harbor. So, I suppose my skepticism is based on a reservation of judgment.
One reason for the net negative aspects of climate change that I'd considered has to do with the waning of the Church that we see, and connect its straying to the change we're seeing. Climate change would therefore be connected to God's Justice; his punishment of the wicked and his desire for his people to turn from their sin and return to him.
Another reason I'd thought of, based on your video, is based on your point on the Industrial Revolution. I could suppose that the spirit of Revolution was bent toward mastery as opposed to stewardship. That reminded me of the difference between Adonai and Ba'al. Both terms have overlapping meanings, but the contextual connotations are what drive the two apart. Ba'al is a master of slaves; Adonai is a master of government.
Today is Saturday; from me to you, Shabbat shalom.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! Yes, we’ve got lots of work to do in the attitude toward science in the church!
Great video. You’ve convinced me that climate change it is something to consider more thoughtfully as opposed to brushing it aside. God bless you and thank you for the work.
Glad it was helpful!
Suppose that we hold climate change as an undebatable reality we are facing here on earth, the next real question should then be whether the future catastrophic results are avoidable. Suppose that we can reach the so called "net-zero" emissions, is this phenomenon still reversible? Or will all of our efforts to undo it never be enough? I think this is also why the Gospel is our only hope for the future of our humanity.
@N/A lol one volcano would destroy all your work. Thank you Lord!
@N/A what happen to the complete melting of the ice caps? Weren’t cities suppose to be drowned out from rising oceans? All the models are complete fabrication. I left another comment on here on about the “Club of room” which is the think tank that came up with “anthropomorphic global warming” as the crisis to unite all peoples of the earth.
You are naive dude all life in earth is carbon based so when Bill gates says this has to go to zero that means that we are the target! You have to decrease the human population to get zero carbon emission! I love carbon! Trees need carbon! If I could release more clean carbon I would! We need to do the opposite more carbon! I love carbon! Gods favorite molecule because it is cornerstone for life!
@N/A again you’re naive and in a dooms day cult.
Al Gore said in his movie “An inconvenient truth” that the ice caps would completely melted and Manhattan would be under water by 2013! Robert Malthus who started all this human caused doomsday stuff was wrong about food shortages and resources running out too. The ice caps have actually grown since the 2010’s but none of that even matters.
Look dude it sounds like you probably have autism so I know you’re all worked up but you need to repent from your scientism cult and be a man and trust God and do your best to pray for discernment.