The Climate Change Cult Wants Us to Drink a Half-Trillion Dollars in Kool-Aid

By Nolan Lewallen Published on November 18, 2021

It seems that more and more Americans are drinking the Kool-Aid of the Climate Change cult, even within the church. I call it a cult because of the level of devotion its followers have without a shred of settled science (or scripture) to back it up. It’s like a hollow log. Their talking points create a shell empty of facts. Colossians 2:8 tells us, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” [emphasis mine]

Since God’s word tells us “the earth will wear out like a piece of clothing,” (Isaiah 51:6) it’s hard to get very excited about all the doomsday rhetoric. I’ve had many pieces of clothing that I’ve worn and worn until they just wore out. Their time of service to me didn’t come to an end by tearing them, spilling bleach on them, shrinking, or by any other calamitous means. They just wore out.

The Grand Finale

Some use scriptures like 2 Peter 3: 10-13 and Revelation 16: 8, which talk about the earth being burned up, to advance their global warming doctrine. But those scriptures refer to the end of the age when God’s judgement is poured out (which doesn’t negate Isaiah 51: 6). News Flash: When God’s judgement is poured out on the earth, it’s not going to make any difference whether you’re driving a brand-new electric Tesla or a 1965 Mustang.

The White House’s “Build Back Better” plan represents the biggest climate change investment in U.S. history, worth $555 billion. All this to reduce greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) that are allegedly affecting the temperature of our planet. Based on a U.S. population of 330 million, that’s $1,681 for every man, woman, and child in America, or $6,727 per family of four. China, Russia, and India are laughing at us all the way to the bank. And even if we lower our CO2, so what? It hasn’t been proven that CO2 is a bad thing for the earth.

Alarmists May Have Things Backwards

Jay Lehr of the International Climate Science Coalition believes the alarmists have it backwards. Dr. Lehr insists that historical data shows the earth’s temperature has always risen first, followed by the CO2 level in the atmosphere. To illustrate this point, he uses the practical example of opening a cold carbonated beverage and leaving it out for a while. As it warms, all the “fizz” of the carbonation dissipates. Cold liquid holds more CO2 than warm liquid. Thus, as the oceans warm in a warming cycle, CO2 disperses out of the water and into the atmosphere. And furthermore, Lehr believes when the rising levels of CO2 do occur, it has a positive impact. In the Netherlands, farmers are pumping additional CO2 into their tulip greenhouses, producing tremendous yields.

Dr. Carl Baugh, founder of Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, has had a passionate interest in reenacting the conditions of the pre-flood earth for more than thirty years. Using his expertise in both the Scriptures and science, he is creating a “hyperbaric biosphere” chamber to simulate those conditions. Dr. Baugh believes the “canopy” of water that enveloped the earth before the flood would have produced, among other conditions, a higher concentration of carbon dioxide. While the Chicken Littles are screaming “The sky is falling!” because of a slight increase in CO2, perhaps it’s getting us closer to how God created the earth in the first place.

Sleight of Hand Panic-Mongering

In its June 24, 1974 issue, Time magazine ran a story with this provocative question as the title: “Another Ice Age?” The article said meteorologists had found “the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades” and “the trend shows no indication of reversing.” After listing some other possible causes, the article said, “Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend … climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.”

It’s quite a stretch to believe that the temperature of this planet of 260 billion cubic miles, a surface of 197 million square miles and a mass of 6.6 sextillion tons, spinning at about 1,000 mph (at the equator) while on its 584 million mile path around the sun, could undergo threats of both cold and hot temperatures of near cataclysmic proportions … that we “teeny” little humans (and farting cows) caused.

Forging a Fake Scientific Consensus

These alarmists continually use propaganda phrases like, “97 percent of all scientists agree.” But they don’t. The scientific community is very much divided on climate. That 97% figure was first published in 2004 in an essay in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, now a Harvard professor. Oreskes used a dishonest method to come up with the 97 percent figure. Shortly after the article was published, Dr. Benny Peiser, director of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, published an analysis of the Oreskes study.

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

Peiser noted that Oreskes claimed she’d analyzed 928 abstracts of articles listed on the ISI (a database of scientific articles indexed according to subject matter) during the period of 1993 to 2003 using the keywords “climate change.” When Peiser did a search using the same keywords for the same period, almost 12,000 papers came up. When confronted with this discrepancy, Oreskes admitted the mistake and said she actually used the keywords “global climate change” instead of “climate change.” When Peiser replicated her study, he found that only 29% even “implicitly” endorsed the consensus view and only 1% “explicitly” endorsed the view.

This fraudulent 97% talking point was later published in 2013 by John Cook, a global warming activist from Australia, on his website. His claim was later debunked as a fraud, but by then it was too late. We couldn’t get the toothpaste back into the tube. It was parroted for years until most of us assumed it must be true.

The Real Meaning of the Rainbow

Proverbs 8: 29 tells us, “He assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters would not transgress His command.” I’m certain that God’s not in panic mode because the oceans are rising the thickness of two nickels per year. Let’s not forget that the flood in Noah’s day rose more than 22 feet above the highest peaks (Genesis 7: 19). Mount Everest is 29,035 feet. Apparently, the earth is amazingly resilient. And God promised, “Never again will a flood destroy the earth” (Gen. 9: 11). He even gave us the rainbow as a permanent reminder (verse 13). So, the alarmists can try to scare us with the rising sea levels (even though many of them have multimillion dollar homes right on the ocean). But we’re reminded every time we see a rainbow that God says (to loosely paraphrase), “It ain’t gonna happen.”

You may ask, where are my climatologist’s credentials? I would ask you, where are AOC’s? Where are Al Gore’s? Where are Greta Thunberg’s?

I believe we are to be good stewards, but it seems that many who are in this Climate Change cult have made “Mother Earth” an idol. Romans 1: 25 says, “They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise.”


Nolan Lewallen is a retired pilot of a major airline and lives near Stephenville, Texas, with his wife, Kim. His new book, The Integration of Church & State: How We Transform “In God We Trust” From Motto to Reality, brings the two together.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

The Habit of Nearness
Robert J. Morgan
More from The Stream
Connect with Us