Select Page

Regular readers know very well that we here at The MonT-SteR REPORT regard the Evangelical Statement on Climate Change (ESCC) as a grossly ill-conceived document — largely because of its dependence on the faulty premise that the scientific community is united in its certainty that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. The ESCC has this to say:

Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

One of the sources they cite in support of this assertion is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Summary for Policymakers, which “projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes ‘most of the warming’ to human activities.” What the ESCC does not tell you (possibly because its authors were unaware) is that 1)the IPCC is not entirely made up of scientists, 2) those who serve on the IPCC are not monolithically united in support of the notion of man-made global warming, and 3) some of those who have resigned from the IPCC in protest against the blind acceptance of pop global warming theory are nevertheless listed as contributors to the IPCC’s report. These facts alone refute the ESCC’s assertion that there is undiluted scientific consensus on the issue, even within the IPCC.

The ESCC also rudely characterizes skeptics of pop global warming theory as a ragtag, minuscule, marginalized segment that is “in denial” about the supposedly unassailable scientific consensus. This assertion simply isn’t credible, especially in light of the growing list of leading scientists worldwide who are reversing their positions on climate change.

Even so, the ESCC encourages Christians that we can trust the output of the IPCC’s assessments and deliberations because it is chaired by an evangelical Christian. Sorry guys — evangelical Christians, no matter how devout or sincere, can be WRONG. And that’s just what the signatories to the ESCC are. The very foundation of the ESCC itself depends upon an underlying premise that is dubious at best, patently false at worst. Oddly enough, the ESCC lays the groundwork for its own demise:

Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data.

Precisely. And the demonstrable lack of scientific consensus on pop global warming theory serves to illustrate that the ESCC’s certitude on the matter is unwarranted. That means, ladies and gentlemen of the Evangelical Climate Initiative (including the likes of people I admire, such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially Jack Hayford), that you messed up. And I think that the commitment to truth that is a requisite of the Christian lifestyle dictates that you ought to withdraw your signatures and support from the ESCC, posthaste.


aka The MonT-SteR