The Simple Pastor

By Phil Whittall, church planter, blogger & book reviewer

• Wayne Grudem is wrong

  December 5, 2009 | 452 Views | 3 Comments

  At least I’m pretty sure he is about climate change. According to Krish Kandiah, Prof Grudem is a climate sceptic. “There are those who say that the production of carbon dioxide is creating a greenhouse effect and is causing the earth to warm, in fact it does not appear to be born out by empirical evidence, all of the evidence for global warning is based on computer modelling and many of the assumptions of the computer models are highly suspect. Within the last month we had 30,000 scientists who signed a public declaration that they were high sceptical of the warnings of global warming.”

  I don’t think he could be more wrong. I also picked up today from Peter Ould’s latest blog that he’s a sceptic, so it seems is popular Christian blogger Tim Challies and a whole host of others. Made me wonder if evangelicals are more likely to be climate change sceptics and I think that could be so.

  Here are a few posts from my friend Jeremy who is convinced of man-made climate change.

  • First be aware of media spin
  • And evidence that Americans are more sceptical than even oil geologists 
  • Why Grudem’s 30,000 scientists isn’t that impressive 
  • If you haven’t made up your mind 
  • And what if we’re wrong
  • Share this:
  • Share

  Categories: climate change

Related Posts

• No related posts
• Simon

  I've noticed a disturbing trend for arguments along the lines of:

  a) the climate change "lobby" is far too man-centred in it's response, therefore climate change is a myth. I find this argument very disturbing, especially since I agree with the premise. Such an argument could be used to portray sin as a myth on the basis that man's attempts to earn salvation from the consequences of our sin are far too man-centred. Clearly that isn't true. I find it strange that there is such resistance amongst evangelical Christians to the thought that fallen man's effect on God's creation could be harmful.

  b) to take notice of the views of scientists is to be in the thrall to a priestly class. As said above, I don't find man-made climate change scenario is discredited from a theological point of view so it leads me to consider the science – and I think it's good to respect that when they stick to science, then scientists have something to contribute to scientific debate. Likewise, why is the "priestly class" argument confined to scientists? I have a lot of respect for Wayne Grudem's theological expertise, as I suspect would many who have used this argument. But for consistency's sake if I should be so cynical about the priestly class of scientists, why not theologians and Bible translators? (I try and avoid being cynical about any of these, for the record.

• Simon

  I did a quick search for Grudem and climate change and in first place (directly above your post) came a link to this: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/an-open-letter-to-the-signers-of-climate-change-an-evangelical-call-to-action-and-others-concerned-about-global-warming.pdf

  The last paragraph of page 2 gives perhaps the most surreal Biblical/theological justification of reckless use of the Earth's resources I have yet seen – on the basis of the stewardship which God has given us over the earth, backed up by Wayne Grudem himself. I have never heard any of the most shrill and extreme climate change lobbyists suggest that an appropriate action is to stop taking "such ordinary and
  morally good and necessary things as breathing, building a fire to cook or keep warm, burning fuel to travel, or using energy for a refrigerator to preserve food." (merely a responsible amount of some of the latter in order to continue being able to do some of the former)

• Max

  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019671/climategate-the-video-everyone-should-see/