The Climate Change Conflict: Keeping Cool over Global Warming

by Jake Hebert

Climate change is a hot topic. From politics to theology, debate rages over whether we face an imminent climate catastrophe and whether drastic action is needed to stop it. But how much is real science and how much is just political alarmism? In The Climate Change Keeping Cool over Global Warming, Dr. Jake Hebert dives into the confusing world of climate change science and brings much-needed clarity from a scientific and biblical perspective.

48 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2019

Reviews

[Dan Hickman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hebert points out why climate change alarmists are so concerned about increasing atmospheric CO2 levels in spite of clear benefits of higher CO2 such as for plant growth. He makes clear arguments that the assumption of an unstable climate is weak and propped up by the Milankovitch theory, which remains intact only because secular scientists cannot invent a better explanation for the supposed many ice ages.

[Steven Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m not really sure why The Institute of Creation Research has gone after this tangential, controversial topic. I’m not sure how it serves their mission. It seems they have some climate model based on a predicted ice age after Noah’s flood they are seeking to validate. However, this book is not a good look.

The author may have some valid points, but he lost credibility with me in the claims in areas I have some experience in. I’ve done water system modeling, so I’m familiar with the shortfalls of models. All models are wrong; some are useful. There’s aspects of climate change I’m naturally skeptical of just because of times when I’ve been bitten by modeling assumptions. But though I have a more open mind than most, I’m skeptical of his claims based on areas that I have familiarity with.

For one, he cites the climate gate email scandal, but then implies that the University of East Anglin is profiting off of climate alarmism by giving the figures for the entire university research budget rather than the budget for the climate research grants. Why do this?

Second, he uses the way to simplified argument that more carbon dioxide would mean more plants and algae which would be a good thing. Well, most states are fighting harmful algal blooms due to an over abundance of nutrients in runoff. More plants are not always a good thing.

Third, the author is overly reliant upon his own research and its importance. I’m sorry, but you have to do better than to cite your poster session submission.

Fourth, the book focuses solely on temperature but not other related impacts. For instance about the impact of a decreased snow pack in the Rockies on drinking water reserves for Colorado and surrounding states? What about the increased magnitude in storm events we are seeing in the Eastern US, and the impacts both on flooding and drought? These and other such impacts are just passed over or dismissed.

Are there political agendas in science? Absolutely. But does this book present data that resolves all debate? Not at all. Will this book change anyone’s mind about the debate? Probably not.

The young earth creation view, which I hold, is controversial enough: why add to the controversy by submitting a poorly argued book on a politically charged but unessential argument? ICR can do better in my opinion.

[Nancy Bandusky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative for the layperson but does get technical a bit. He explains the 3 main reasons secular scientists think there is a climate change issue and what is wrong with the reasons - (1) the use of computer climate models, (2) fraudulent, political research, and (3) the failed Milankovitch theory. While it is short, it is still a good resource for someone who wants to hear the side that is so often silenced.

[Larry Wegman · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Ph.D. meteorologist looks at the question of climate change, and concludes that causes for what's happening (which isn't as bad as what we often hear) are things we can't control - primarily cosmic rays and solar activity. While agreeing that we need to be better stewards of the Earth than we have been regardless of what else is going on, he decries the politicization of the issue.

[Beverly · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author give convincing arguments against climate alarmism and so-called man-caused climate change.

[Jennie Webb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, but very scientific. Also very short. :)

[Steven Yoder · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short booklet explaining how secular scientists explain climate change. The author shows how they are wrong including stating that some of their conclusions come from circular reasoning. Hebert gives the Creationist point of view near the end but refers the reader to other resources on his website.