The AGW (Manmade Global Warming) Debate Explained


For  Celebrity Christians (authors & the like) inflammatory language isn’t meant to persuade, it’s meant to appeal to their target audience, the already persuaded. Like the preacher who does no actual outreach himself but teaches others  how to do it… “Preaching to the choir.” What did Jesus call them? Oh, yeah: “blind guides” … pretty inflammatory, I don’t imagine many would encourage such language. Good thing He was Jesus or else He might have been criticized by religious leaders for His lack of “respect” … oh, what … he was… ???


Why do so many cower as though the world’s hatred is what displeases God? As though the world’s love represents “fruit” ??? That is a blatant contradiction of Jesus’ teachings.

Social media is propagating a lie. That truth can be determined by the number of likes a post receives. That time that 2 Timothy 4:3 refers to, it has come.

The AGW debate is about agnosticism/atheism, which means several things:

1. The “science” of it is not science at all. It’s philosophy disguised as science. Therefore facts really are meaningless, and that for both sides of the debate. They are merely a formality that must be discussed as a precursor to getting to the heart issues. The issues of fear & control.

2. The emotions are primal. “Fight or flight.” In one way or another all participants will ultimately choose one of those two options. There will be differing degrees of dignity involved, but ultimately everyone chooses one or the other. I know one lady that drops the F-bomb as punctuation in her “I’m saving you from yourself” tirades. You’d think nobody could take her seriously, but they do, so long as they are on the alarmist side of the debate.

3. Probably most importantly, some percentage of this population of “cultists” are lost. They not only doubt God, but they outright reject Him. Just saying so isn’t enough, but I find that taking significant offense at the use of the term “faith” in the context of what they call “science” is a very good indicator that these are people that actively revel in their rejection of God. Discussions with such people are only for the sake of others. It’s amazing how many PMs can be generated by one volatile thread.

4. Finally, but not only, sometimes our worst enemies will be well-meaning believers. They will do a “drive-by” and will often derail any progress that was made. Bible literalists are terribly frustrating in such conversations. Conservatives found in more liberal forums tend to be very independent and not quick to back each other up. It’s a really interesting dynamic.

The message that it really boils down to is WHO we put our trust in. I personally make a point to always admit that with more information, with better science, we may find that there are practical “stewardship” steps we could take. However, the debate as it stands today has almost nothing to do with “science” and everything to do with fear. There are good scientists that may not even be believers that recognize such, but they are ostracized quickly and efficiently. This is a war for souls, nothing less.

1 1