How should a Christian view global warming?

Answer

The term global warming has fallen out of favor, being largely replaced by the term climate change. The subject is a matter of intense disagreement and debate. Unfortunately, conversations often align with political and social beliefs rather than with evidence, reason, and Scripture. Humanity was appointed by God to be the steward of this world “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”, (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it. Christians should be concerned about the impact we have on the earth. However, we must not let environmentalism become a form of idolatry “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”, (Romans 1:25). The “rights” of an inanimate planet and non-human life should never outweigh those of humanity, who are created in God’s image.

In the debate over global warming/climate change, it appears that only extreme viewpoints are discussed. One extreme asserts that humanity is entirely responsible for climate change, all consequences are negative, science can precisely predict the outcomes of not implementing changes, and only drastic measures can prevent billions from perishing in the next few years. The other extreme claims that humans have absolutely no impact on climate, science cannot forecast anything related to climate, and there is no need to be concerned about the issue.

Instead of taking extreme positions “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.”, (Philippians 4:5),

In (Philippians 4:5), believers should seek to understand. That means knowing what the facts are, from whom those facts come, how they are interpreted, and what spiritual implications result. Especially important is separating the questions “what is the situation?” and “what should we do about it?” Blurring those domains is a major reason this topic inspires so much venom.

Hard facts are rarely presented on either side of the global warming debate. Instead, there are many references to conjectures, statistical models, studies of studies, or what percentage of some group agrees with a particular phrasing regarding the issue. Projected consequences, real or imagined, become the basis for recommending policy, rather than logic. Facts are sometimes ignored, both by those who blame humanity for climate change and those who hold humanity totally innocent of it. Almost no one, on either side, has a solid grasp of the “hard” science or mathematics at work.

Those said to “believe in” or “support” the popular stance on global warming have reasons behind their views. Experience and research seem to indicate that climate change, including aspects of global warming, is indeed occurring. The same data suggests that human activity can influence the atmosphere and weather patterns. Humans have negatively impacted our environment in the past. Those who disagree may seem dismissive of all science related to the problem or discounted as conspiracy theorists.

Those who reject the popular view of global warming also have their reasons. Doomsday predictions that prove untrue foster skepticism. When failed prophecies of global disaster are followed by revised proclamations with new timelines, the skepticism increases, and the cycle repeats. Predictions related to global warming are often based on speculative models, multiple layers of conjecture, and obscure data greatly subject to interpretation. Worse, proposed solutions often seem overblown or unreasonable; life-altering extreme measures are often suggested by those.

Those who may understand climate but have little grasp of economics, ethics, or history. Supporters of the prevailing view often appear dismissive of any criticism or questioning and tend to label anyone who disagrees with them as “anti-science.”

Politics, more than any other factor, complicates the discussion on global warming. The loudest voices attributing climate change to mankind are aligned with left-leaning politics. Calls for urgent action on global warming typically originate from those who also deny the humanity of the unborn, redefine gender and sexuality, and criticize religious beliefs. Conversely, the strongest opposition to mainstream climate theories tends to come from right-leaning political and social groups.

In essence, the global warming and climate change debate has evolved into a proxy battle within the modern progressive-versus-conservative political arena. Any rationale or truth in the matter often gets overshadowed in an “us-versus-them” conflict.

When it comes to issues like this, skepticism differs from disbelief. There are bits of evidence supporting both sides, along with logical reasons for favoring one interpretation over another. The issue of anthropogenic global warming should not create divisions among Christian believers (see Luke 11:17). Environmental concerns are significant, but they are not the most critical challenges facing humanity. Christians should treat our world with respect and responsible stewardship, without allowing politically motivated hysteria to dictate our environmental perspective—regardless of the direction it takes. Our relationship with God does not hinge on belief or disbelief in human-caused global warming.