In recent years, controversy over climate change has created significant confusion and division among Christians. Conflicting voices in the evangelical community have made the issue even more difficult.

Our response should be grounded in biblical principles, scientific understanding, and a commitment to human flourishing. In this article, we will aim to clear the air and promote an appropriate response by addressing three distinct perspectives that have emerged: forecasting an imminent global catastrophe, denying any change in climate, and acknowledging warming but denying that it brings more harms than benefits.

A Warm Earth

Let us begin with those who deny climate is changing. That view is scientifically untenable. Every scientist in the academy acknowledges and affirms that climate is changing.

More specifically, there is no challenge to the fact that Earth has warmed gradually since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 18^th century, albeit to varying degrees in different locations. In fact, the entire Holocene — a climatic period that began 11,500 years ago — has never been constant, with plenty of hot and cold epochs.

What about those who prophesy an imminent doomsday because of dangerous warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions?

They argue that human-induced climate change — due to emissions from fossil fuels, agriculture, etc. — will lead to catastrophic consequences soon, including widespread famine, extreme weather events, and mass extinctions. While their concern for God’s creation is understandable, it is misinformed.

These claims are usually based on computer climate models (Global Forecast System models and CMIP6) and their forecasts for future temperature increase. Not only are these forecasts based on far-fetched assumptions leading to exaggerated predictions of warming, but there is also no data to prove that even the warming they predict will amplify extreme weather events, as indicated by decades of data from recent past.

The Doomsday Climate Doctrine

Scientists like Katharine Hayhoe, for example, espouse this doomsday view in speaking engagements at churches and faith groups. Unfortunately, people are often prone to the logical fallacy called “appeal to authority” — attributing infallibility to certain people or institutions because of their position or expertise.

Seldom do people realize that academia comprises scientists with a plethora of opinions, and they disagree on the nuances of the science of climate change. Not all scientists, nor even Nobel prize winners, agree that the modern warming is dangerous or is caused, wholly or largely, by human emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2).

That brings us to our third group, climate realists, who accept the available evidence on climate, acknowledge the complex nature of paleoclimate, and do not prophesy doomsday. Some of those, including myself, contributed to the recently published book Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism (Regnery, March 2024).

Their position stems from available climate data on temperatures, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and their impact on ecosystems. Hundreds of peer-reviewed academic journal articles reject the hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change and attribute modern warmth to natural causes.

They point out that available data show no dangerous increase in the frequency of droughts, extreme rainfall, wildfires, hurricanes, or deaths from weather-related disasters.

More Resilient Than They Think

On the flip side, we have an unprecedented increase in the production of food crops, life expectancy, forest area in several countries, and access to fresh water for drinking. In fact, the excess CO2 in our atmosphere has been the primary reason behind the greening of the earth in the 20^th century and has also contributed to rising crop productivity.

The coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are healthy, polar bear numbers are increasing, and the polar ice levels are at some of the highest levels of the Holocene period.

It is also important to understand that the doomsday perspective ignores the resilience God has built into His creation, and the ingenious ability He has endowed upon mankind to solve most problems.

For instance, the Malthusian principle — a dominant theory during the 1980s and 1990s — claimed that humanity would run out food by the turn of the 21^st century due to overpopulation.

This anti-human principle failed miserably with the advent of the agricultural boom starting in the 1960s and continuing to this day, largely due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (plant food), advanced plant breeding, fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural technologies. Countries that were experiencing famine during the 1960s and 1970s are now among the world’s leading food grain exporters.

Grim Prophets Promote Bad Policies

The climate doomsday perspective also promotes policies that could harm the poor by restricting access to affordable fossil fuel energy and economic development opportunities.

In many African countries, programs aimed at enabling affordable access to cooking gas and electricity face uncertainty due to fossil-fuel opposition from European donors and the African Development Bank. As a result, millions continue to be exposed to harmful pollutants from toxic cooking fuels and live without electricity, keeping them in perpetual poverty.

Having trouble envisioning conditions in Africa? Consider the energy systems in America, where anti-fossil policies put grid stability at risk by integrating a large percentage of highly volatile and expensive wind and solar technologies and put the energy independence gained by the fracking revolution of the 2010s at risk, pushing the U.S. into renewed dependency on foreign oil.

As Christians, we must reject the apocalyptic narrative that contradicts the hope and assurance we have in Christ. By considering both the scriptural mandate for creation care and the divine charge to foster human development, we can work toward a scientifically informed, Christ-centered response to the controversial issue of climate change and the politics surrounding it.

And that means not promoting the crisis propaganda, but refocusing our efforts toward making our world a better place for the billions in poverty.

Vijay Jayaraj, a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition in Arlington, Virginia, wrote this article for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He holds a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University and an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, both in the U.K., and a B.S. in engineering from Anna University, India.