Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

From: Carol or John Burgeson <>
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 18:44:36 EST

The letter below is from one of us who does more to embarrass
Christianity than just about anyone. OK -- maybe not as much as Pat
Robertson and certainly not as much as Fred Phelps.

Yet, in this case I find myself in substantial agreement. The Rick Warren
group simply does not have the expertise to make this recommendation.

Of course, Jerry also lacks the expertise to declare global warming as

Note the Alan Wisdom quote Jerry uses. "Churches should be reluctant to
attach the name of the Gospel of Christ to contemporary political agendas
that lack a clear scriptural mandate and consensus among the faithful."
There are a number of such issues Jerry is not at all reluctant to speak
up on. Gun control, euthanasia, stem cell research, capital punishment,
civil rights for gays and lesbians, etc. Not to mention the questions of
origins and evolution.

Individuals ought to speak up on these issues. But I'm not keen on
organizations doing so. But the masses that receive the Falwell emails
and treat them as prophetic truth will no doubt reinforce their existing
prejudices against science. One more "brick" in the YEC message.


Date: February 10, 2006
From: The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance
By: Jerry Falwell


A group of more than 80 evangelical leaders has released a statement
conveying what they describe as a biblically-driven pledge to address
issues of “global warming.”

The group, which includes The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren,
called on the government to ratify legislation aimed at reducing carbon
dioxide emissions that allegedly contribute to global climate change.

Issued by the Evangelical Climate Initiative, the statement declares:
“This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an
offense against God himself.”

Signers said the statement was brought about by a concern for the impact
global warming will have on people, especially poor nations and

“The consequences of global warming,” the statement reads, “will hit the
poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly
affected first are the poorest regions of the world.”

Many of the people who signed this document are my friends — some are
dear friends.š Nevertheless, I have felt compelled to oppose their effort
because I believe that global warming is an unproven phenomenon and may
actually just be junk science being passed off as fact.

In addition, I believe that so-called solutions to global warming — and
particularly the Kyoto Protocol, which is the politically-correct
international agreement to fight greenhouse gas emissions — would
devastate the American economy if adopted by our nation.š Further,
studies have shown that costly efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions
would just barely reduce global temperatures.

Paul Driessen, senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality
and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death, recently
stated, “By making energy less affordable and accessible, mandatory
controls (on greenhouse-gas emissions) would drive up the costs of
consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose
especially harmful effects on the earth’s poorest people.”

That’s a bottom line our nation cannot endorse.

I believe that my dear friends who have signed onto the Evangelical
Climate Initiative have acted prematurely and really need to examine
countering opinions on global warming.

There are many respectedšscientists who feel that present warming trends
are a cyclical phenomenon; they point to the 70s, only 30 years ago, when
many scientists were similarlyšpredicting a global cooling.

It is also important to note that China, India and other major
nationsšwho comprise more than half of the world’s population have stated
they will not participate in such agreements.

Evangelicals must be very cautious in addressing issues of such
magnitude, especially when the jury is still out on the magnitude of the

Alan Wisdom, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, stated
this week, “Churches should be reluctant to attach the name of the Gospel
of Christ to contemporary political agendas that lack a clear scriptural
mandate and consensus among the faithful.”

I think those are very wise words.

At most, I recommendšasking the U.S. government to take reasonable
measures tošestablish limits on emissions at the federal level and “to
pass and implement national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through cost effective,
market-based mechanisms.” I stop right there for fear of starting some
“toboggan slide” toward reckless and hurtful decisions which will greatly
diminish our nation and likely injure our children and children’s
Received on Mon Feb 13 18:49:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 13 2006 - 18:49:03 EST