Out of curiosity in 2009, Dr. Heinz Lycklama first started looking into the issue of Global Warming to determine what was causing it and why it was so controversial. As a result of his independent analysis (from a science perspective), he determined that the Global Warming issue was being blown way out of proportion. Global Warming was not due to the miniscule proportion of CO2 (0.04%) in the atmosphere (as a Greenhouse Gas); and CO2 is not a pollutant. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had a different agenda and science was hijacked in support of that agenda. Dr. Lycklama’s conclusion was based on the study of many scientific papers written by climate scientists. The results of his analysis appear here along with links to the scientific papers referenced.
Why is Global Warming (GW) an Apologetics Issue?
The GW scare is an example of how the global elite have hijacked science in support of their agenda. The science has shown that CO2 cannot account for the climate change in the past, today, or in the future. What we have observed is that the earth was designed to support minor changes in the climate with the appropriate feedback systems. The biblical mandates support this:
- Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Gen. 1:28.
- While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. Gen. 8:22.
- But test everything; hold fast what is good. 1 Th. 4:22.
The climate will always change while the earth exists. Dr. Lycklama is scheduled to give a talk on “What About Global Warming?” at the Creation Science Fellowship meeting in Costa Mesa, CA on Saturday, June 3, 2017. The talk will in fact explain why exiting the Paris Climate Agreement was the right decision by the President of the US.
The UN Paris Climate Agreement
- Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
- Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them;
- Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review;
- Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones;
- Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
- Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025;
- Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;”
- Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and
- Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC.
Why the US Should Exit the Paris Climate Agreement
An opinion piece from the Washington Times – April 17, 2017 gave many reasons for the US to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Here are some of the reasons.
- Accepting climate-change advocates’ assumptions about how much warming comes from carbon dioxide, showed in a peer-reviewed study that implementing all provisions of all signers to Paris would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.
- What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.
- Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.
- All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double.
- So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.
The US Exits the Paris Climate Agreement on June 1, 2017
The President of the US announced that the US is withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement since 1) the agreement is not backed by science and 2) it would have committed the US to the redistribution of wealth to other countries and 3) it would be at a cost that would not achieve its stated goals anyway. Here is the announcement and some reactions to it.
- The announcement from the President of the US.
- The Washington Times commentary on the exit.
- Comments from the Cornwall Alliance.
- Comments from the Climate Depot.
We applaud the President for his courage in exiting from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Dr. Heinz Lycklama,
President of the Apologetics Forum