0:00

Hello friend. Thank you so much for downloading this

0:02

broadcast, and it is my sincere hope

0:04

that you will hear something that will encourage, equip,

0:06

edify, enlighten and then get you out

0:08

there in the marketplace of ideas. But before you go

0:10

and start listening to the broadcast, let me

0:12

take one moment and introduce you to this month's Truth

0:15

Tool. It's a book called misled,

0:17

and I chose this book because when you start listening

0:19

to some of the things that are being taught from the front

0:21

of the church today, it's disconcerting.

0:24

Legalism, overemphasis on prosperity,

0:26

a warped sense of grace, harmful

0:29

ideas that will turn people off from

0:31

the gospel and lead them away. That's

0:33

why I've chosen the book misled. The

0:35

purpose of this book is to help you learn how

0:37

to identify false teachings, while at

0:39

the same time finding joy in the gospel.

0:42

With all its power and its simplicity.

0:44

We're listener supported radio. These truth

0:46

tools are my way of not only helping you grow up

0:49

in him, but they help our program as well financially.

0:51

So simply call 877 Janet

0:53

58 877 Janet

0:55

58. Give a gift of any amount and I'll send

0:57

you as a way of saying thank you. A copy of the

0:59

book misled. You might also want

1:01

to go online in the market with Janet parshall.org

1:04

scolded the bottom of the page. There's the cover

1:06

of the book misled. Click it on make

1:09

your donation. Take you less than two minutes and

1:11

I'll send it right off to you again as my way of saying

1:13

thank you. While you're on that website, linger for

1:15

just a moment longer. Just below misled

1:18

is a description of what it means to be a partial partner.

1:20

Those are people who give every single month at

1:22

a level of their own choosing. They always

1:24

get the truth tool each and every month, but they get something

1:27

else. I put out a newsletter every

1:29

single week that includes a copy of my radio

1:31

transcript, and the only people who get that are my

1:33

partial partners, as well as an audio piece just

1:36

for those who are partial partners. So if

1:38

you want to support this program on a monthly basis,

1:40

again, you choose the level. My way of saying

1:42

thank you is sending you a copy of each and every

1:44

month's truth tool and a weekly copy

1:46

of our newsletter. So in the market with

1:48

Janet parshall.org, scroll to the bottom

1:50

of the page or call 877

1:52

Janet 58 877

1:55

Janet 58. Again this month's truth

1:57

tool misled to help you better

1:59

contend for the faith. And now please enjoy

2:01

the broadcast. Hi,

2:08

friends. This is Janet Parshall, and I want to welcome

2:10

you to the best of in the market. Today's

2:12

program is prerecorded so our phone lines

2:14

are not open. But I do hope you'll enjoy today's

2:16

edition of The Best of In the Market with

2:18

Janet Parshall.

2:31

And the honest truth is, there's

2:34

no easy way.

2:38

I reckon. Systems

2:40

must. Tomorrow's

2:45

children count on us

2:47

today. To

3:00

fall in love. You

3:19

fall in. Love

3:21

with you. Funny, but

3:23

I kind.

3:24

Of think the book of Romans talks about that.

3:26

Hello and welcome to In the Market with Janet

3:28

Parshall. Not our usual opening, but very

3:31

germane to the conversation we're about to have.

3:33

That is the Earth Day hymn

3:35

put out by a group called Creation

3:38

Justice Ministries.

3:40

Falling in love with the Earth

3:42

again. Humankind should fall

3:44

in love with the Earth again. I'm just going

3:46

to leave that theological quagmire

3:48

hanging out there for a moment as we

3:50

dive into a very important conversation. One honestly,

3:53

I've been waiting for. I get to talk to two

3:55

of my favorite people who have been

3:57

contributors and our co-editors

3:59

to a brand new, seminal

4:01

book that I hope will reinvigorate

4:04

clear conversation and

4:07

solid science and compassion

4:09

toward our fellow man. Regarding the

4:11

subject of the climate, the book is

4:13

called Climate and Energy The Case

4:15

for realism. And joining me today

4:17

are Doctor Calvin Beisner, president of the Cornwall

4:19

Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

4:22

That's an interdisciplinary scholar.

4:24

He is, by the way, an interdisciplinary scholar

4:26

in philosophy, religion, economy, economics,

4:29

rather the history of political thought and environmental

4:32

ethics. And we'll get to more of that in a minute.

4:34

Doctor David Legates is with us. He is director

4:36

of research and education for the Cornwall

4:38

Alliance and professor emeritus

4:40

at the University of Delaware. He's

4:42

a scientist who works in climate, weather,

4:45

hydrology and statistics. He

4:47

has also served as the executive

4:49

director of the US Global Change Research

4:51

Program. Again, they joined me today

4:54

as co authors and co-editors

4:56

of the book Climate and Energy The

4:58

Case for realism. Gentlemen, what a joy

5:00

to have you both back again. Thank you. I have been

5:02

waiting for this book. It's no small

5:04

feat. 444

5:07

pages. It is overflowing

5:09

with footnotes, and it really is

5:11

about just taking a look at the history, looking

5:13

at the science, and looking at ways in which

5:16

we can recognize the reality of what's going

5:18

on in our planet, and then move

5:20

forward in a way that upholds and helps

5:22

our fellow fellow man to flourish

5:24

and doesn't get trampled underfoot by blind

5:27

eyed ideology or nasty

5:29

politics. So I'm so thankful for both of

5:31

you and the work that you did. Cal, I want to start

5:33

with you because this is really the way you started the

5:35

book and you asked the question, how

5:37

did this book on climate change come about? I think

5:39

that's a really good way for us to start this

5:41

conversation, because there

5:43

are a thousand things you could have been writing about

5:45

and you do on a regular basis through your

5:47

writing and speaking through Cornwall. But why

5:50

did you decide that you would put this text together?

5:52

Well, Janet, first, thanks so much for having

5:54

us both on the program. It's a real privilege

5:57

and an honor. Uh, you know,

5:59

this is something that, frankly, we have wanted

6:01

to do for years and,

6:03

uh, we just simply didn't have the resources

6:06

for quite a long while. And,

6:08

uh, recently we were able to put together

6:10

this team of 16 contributing

6:13

authors, uh, nine nine

6:16

climate scientists and

6:18

several economists specializing

6:20

in either environmental or developmental

6:22

economics. And,

6:24

uh, energy experts as well.

6:26

And we did this, I

6:29

think, in order to help people recognize.

6:31

For one thing, that you don't have to

6:33

choose between two extremes.

6:36

On the one extreme, there is the climate

6:38

alarmist or catastrophist notion

6:40

that says, yeah, global warming is real.

6:43

It's man made almost 100%,

6:45

maybe always, maybe all 100%.

6:48

And it's a catastrophe

6:50

either already happening or lurking

6:52

around the corner, maybe even an

6:54

existential threat, which is what President

6:56

Biden has called it. That's

6:58

one extreme. The other extreme

7:01

is to just just deny that climate changes,

7:03

or to deny that there has been

7:05

any climate change recently, or

7:08

to deny that human activity

7:10

has any influence whatsoever on

7:12

the climate, and certainly

7:14

to deny that it is even

7:16

a problem with with which

7:18

we need to deal at all, let alone

7:20

a catastrophe. Instead,

7:23

we see that human

7:25

induced climate change, or global

7:27

warming, is real,

7:30

but it's not catastrophic, and

7:32

it's not likely to become catastrophic.

7:35

And the cost

7:37

benefit balance of

7:39

trying to prevent it or slow

7:41

it is just awful.

7:43

It costs a whole lot more than

7:45

what what it saves. And

7:48

on the other hand, the cost benefit analysis

7:51

of adaptation that is

7:53

preparing to deal with whatever

7:56

future we we see in

7:58

climate, whether it's warming or cooling,

8:00

whether it's a lot or a little. And

8:02

we know from geologic history it could be

8:04

either warming or cooling. It could be a good

8:06

bit, it could be very little. Adaptation

8:10

has a very good cost benefit analysis.

8:13

We can afford to

8:16

adapt to whatever the the future

8:18

climate brings to us. And so if

8:20

our aim is human thriving,

8:23

we should want to pursue the

8:25

kinds of policies that,

8:28

uh, that promote economic development,

8:30

especially for the poor around the world

8:32

and at the same time promote

8:35

biblical earth stewardship

8:37

that is our our working

8:40

together to enhance the fruitfulness

8:42

and the beauty and the safety of the earth,

8:44

to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors.

8:46

David, let me turn to you. And the music is going to

8:49

start in a moment. So let me just sort of put the question

8:51

out there and I'll get the answer if you'd be so kind on

8:53

the other side of the break, you do a beautiful

8:55

job. In the prologue to the book, explaining

8:57

why we need to sort of trust

8:59

and verify if I can use a reaganesque

9:01

expression when it comes to what we read about

9:04

in scientific journals or what is

9:06

touted in the mainstream press. Because

9:08

after all, that's the regular

9:10

diet that we're fed about. The, quote,

9:12

science of climate change.

9:14

And if you deny, excuse me, what is

9:16

supposedly printed in a scientific journal,

9:18

or if you negate what's being

9:20

platformed on mainstream media.

9:23

And by the way, it's hard to find someone like you, David,

9:25

on mainstream media because you don't

9:27

sing along the narrative page. But

9:29

yet there is an important understanding

9:31

that we must have when we approach these journals

9:34

about how things are vetted, how they get

9:36

platformed, how they get published in the first place.

9:38

I'd love for you to walk us through that when we get back.

9:40

It's an exciting and an important new book.

9:43

It is a major work, I think that will

9:45

cause not only much

9:47

dialogue within the scientific community, but

9:49

I hope the community writ large so

9:51

that you and I will understand exactly. As Doctor

9:53

Calvin Beisner has just said, this

9:56

is real, but it is not a catastrophe.

9:58

And in the midst of this, the preeminent concern

10:00

should be how do we help our fellow man

10:02

flourish? That's important. The book again,

10:05

climate and energy the case

10:07

for realism back after this. Today,

10:15

many supposedly Christian teachers are spreading

10:17

ideas that are tantamount to what Paul calls

10:19

another gospel. That's why I've chosen misled

10:22

as this month's truth tool. Be equipped

10:24

to identify wolves in shepherds

10:26

clothing who are peddling a counterfeit gospel.

10:28

As for your copy of misled, when you give a gift

10:30

of any amount to in the market, call 877

10:33

Janet 58. That's 877 Janet

10:35

58 or go to in the market with

10:37

Janet parshall.org.

10:42

Do we have different Bibles? Is

10:44

there a different Bible in Canada versus the US?

10:47

Is there a different Bible in France while it is in French?

10:49

But is it a different Bible? No.

10:52

Same Bible, same

10:55

God. And in fact, you see this

10:57

in the US with Hispanic and

10:59

white Catholics, same pope.

11:03

Yet radically different

11:05

perspectives on climate change. Where do these different

11:07

perspectives come from? They do not come

11:09

from the Bible. So where do these religiously

11:12

sounding objections come from? They are

11:14

window dressing. They are palatable

11:16

excuses. For what

11:19

for? I don't want to fix it. Because

11:22

if I say there's this global issue that affects us

11:24

all, but it's affecting the poorest and

11:26

the most marginalized people worst,

11:29

what would we all think Jesus would say about

11:31

that? In

11:33

fact, there's a National Association of Evangelicals report

11:35

on climate change called loving the Least

11:37

of These. Not good,

11:40

right? But if we don't

11:42

want to fix it, then we have to make

11:44

up a pious sounding

11:46

reason why we don't want to fix it. So

11:48

this is what we do. We make up these reasons.

11:50

So in responding to those reasons, I don't go

11:52

to the science. I would go to the Bible. And

11:54

so for the people who say, well, God's in control.

11:57

So nothing like this, you know, why would this happen?

11:59

I just go to Genesis one where it says God

12:01

gave humans responsibility

12:03

over every living thing on this planet.

12:06

In fact, that was why we were created in

12:08

God's image. And for the people who say, well,

12:10

responsibility, that's translated to have dominion

12:13

over, I say, okay, let's just go to the

12:15

Hebrew word rada. And if

12:17

we go to elsewhere in the Old Testament,

12:19

where the word rada is used, it

12:21

refers to God as a

12:23

ruler having dominion over people to do

12:25

what? To crush them into

12:28

the ground and extract every penny of value

12:30

from them. No, it

12:32

says God will rada over

12:34

them to listen to the cries

12:37

of the needy, to help

12:40

the helpless, to

12:42

care for people. That is what that

12:44

word means.

12:45

That is Katharine Hayhoe. She

12:47

is a climate scientist. She

12:49

is also, by the way, the chief

12:52

scientist for the Nature Conservancy.

12:54

And we'll make a part a lot of what she just

12:57

said in her interpretation of Scripture

12:59

in a minute. But I want to continue our conversation

13:02

with Doctor Calvin Beisner and David Legates,

13:04

both associated with the Cornwall Alliance for

13:06

the Stewardship of Creation, both

13:08

co-editors of A Brand new as well

13:10

as contributors brand new and an important book called

13:13

Climate and Energy The Case

13:15

for realism. So speaking of realism,

13:17

what is real? What is the real science here?

13:19

And I think therein lies the rub. And we're

13:22

talking to people literally from Guam to the Cayman

13:24

Islands. And if we don't have a background

13:26

in science like you do, David,

13:28

our propensity is to think that the person with

13:30

all the initials after their name sitting in front of the

13:32

camera must be just giving a scientific

13:35

fact, because most of us don't have the time, the

13:37

desire or quite frankly, the skills

13:39

to be a Berean and fact check

13:41

all of the stats and figures

13:43

and purported theses

13:45

that are being, uh, enunciated

13:48

on television or we read in a newspaper

13:50

somewhere. That's why I think your prologue

13:52

is so extremely important, because you write

13:55

why don't why don't you learn

13:57

of climate realism from science journals or

13:59

mainstream media? Of course, the question

14:01

presupposes the answer, which is, you don't

14:04

tell me why.

14:05

Well, thank you, Janet, for, uh, having us on.

14:07

Um, part of the issue is a lot of people

14:09

think that science is the quest

14:11

for the truth. Um, maybe

14:13

leaving out God as truth, but

14:16

nevertheless looking for the quest for

14:18

truth in, uh,

14:20

physical world and so forth. But

14:22

what happens in practice is

14:25

that there is a mantra. There

14:27

is a line of thought

14:29

that can't be broken, and it makes

14:31

it very difficult. Uh, one of the

14:34

one of the issues was that when

14:36

academia was created, we had a concept

14:38

of tenure. Tenure was so that

14:40

after a while you demonstrate your worth,

14:43

your ability, you are allowed to go

14:45

off and pursue various other things

14:48

that may run counter to the current narrative,

14:50

that may run counter to the culture,

14:53

but you are allowed to explore things because

14:55

that would further science. The

14:58

idea of science being settled

15:00

is is anathema to most scientists.

15:02

Everything is open to question,

15:05

even for example, gravity, which we said, well,

15:07

of course we know everything about gravity

15:09

and how it works. And now we're finding out

15:11

we don't. The gravity model doesn't

15:13

work at the really small end at

15:15

the subatomic scale, and it really doesn't

15:17

work at the super end where you've got

15:19

large, uh, objects in the, in

15:21

the universe. Um, but

15:23

science changes. And so that

15:26

was the idea of tenure was so you could

15:28

look at various things. And now we've got

15:30

the idea that tenure has

15:32

become some sort of, uh, license

15:34

to do nothing. People abuse

15:37

tenure. You know, you can't fire me

15:39

unless I do something really egregious.

15:41

And so all I do is teach my

15:43

classes, uh, publish a paper here

15:45

and there and go home. And that's not

15:47

what tenure was decided to be. And

15:50

so that's why when we say

15:52

that we're not getting from mainstream

15:54

science, is that mainstream science

15:56

is supposed to be critical of everything

15:59

that has gone before and looking for

16:01

the truth. Instead, what happens in

16:03

mainstream science is it's looking

16:05

to perpetuate what we think

16:07

the narrative is. And once we've decided

16:10

that the narrative is going to be

16:12

climate change is bad. Climate

16:15

change is coming from humans. Climate

16:17

change is because the rich

16:19

people of the world. Have destroyed

16:22

the poor people of the world. They've taken,

16:24

uh, fossil fuels out of the ground.

16:27

They've released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

16:29

That warms the planet. The planet

16:31

is warmer, and that is going to hurt

16:33

the poor in particular. I mean, I don't think

16:36

there's anything you do that would

16:38

hurt. That wouldn't hurt the poor more

16:40

because they're less available

16:42

to adapt to change. And

16:44

so my concern then is, shouldn't

16:47

we be doing all we can to protect

16:49

the poor? I mean, if you listen to what Doctor

16:51

Hayhoe just said, that seems to

16:53

be the message that you'd think she's

16:55

saying. So if that's what

16:57

you're really interested in, then wouldn't

17:00

you be making energy? Uh, inexpensive?

17:03

Wouldn't you be trying to get more energy into

17:05

the hands of the poor? Because

17:07

over the last, you know, 200 or so years,

17:09

the Industrial Revolution has brought

17:11

the poverty level up from effectively

17:14

having 90% below poverty

17:16

to having 90% above poverty.

17:19

And that, I would argue, is a good thing.

17:21

Mm. Wow.

17:22

Fascinating book. And obviously just

17:24

the size of the seminal piece. I'm not going to

17:27

be able to get through all of it, which is wonderful

17:29

because that will be a catalyst for you to get the

17:31

book and to read it on your own. Remember,

17:33

Doctor Calvin Beisner talked about the fact that

17:35

16 authors have contributed

17:37

to this. Nine of them are scientists.

17:39

They're economists that have contributed energy

17:41

experts as well. So it really is

17:43

a standout book that

17:45

I think will reshape the dialogue that's

17:48

being taken, that's taking place in the marketplace

17:50

of ideas right now. Again, it's called climate

17:52

and Energy the Case for

17:54

realism. And I'm really emphasizing that

17:56

last word because, again, as Cal

17:58

said before, this isn't about supporting the

18:01

two ends of an extreme. It's about having

18:03

a balanced, realistic approach back after

18:05

this.

18:09

People 2000 years ago were

18:11

people. And back then

18:13

there were people, especially in Thessalonica,

18:15

who were essentially checking out of life.

18:17

They were saying, well, the world's going to end anyways.

18:20

Maranatha, come, Lord, come. They

18:22

were just sort of quitting their jobs and putting their feet

18:24

up in the easy boy chair of life. And

18:26

the Apostle Paul wrote to them and basically said, get

18:28

a job, care for the widows

18:30

and the poor. Support your family.

18:32

You don't know when the day and the time is.

18:35

And in the meantime, paraphrasing a few

18:37

things. Here we are called to express

18:39

our faith through love. Love to others.

18:41

Like Jesus said, his disciples were to be recognized,

18:44

so there's no theological basis

18:46

for any of this denial. It is

18:48

all excuses, religiously

18:51

sounding, window dressing excuses

18:53

to cover the real problem, which is my politics

18:56

doesn't want to fix it. People

18:58

have pinned their identity on,

19:01

as the Bible calls it, the flesh rather

19:03

than who they are. So that's

19:05

why when we do talk about these issues,

19:07

as I talk about it at Global Weirding episode,

19:10

we can address their objections

19:12

on the surface, but we immediately

19:15

have to pivot and address the underlying

19:18

objections. And the underlying

19:20

objections have nothing to do with God.

19:23

Sadly, and everything to do

19:25

with I don't want to fix it because I'm afraid

19:27

it means they would be taking away my truck,

19:29

my car, my whatever,

19:32

my something I care about

19:34

would be taken away from me. And that's

19:36

why we have to talk about how the fact that there are solutions

19:39

that are good for us, there are solutions that

19:41

give us more. There are solutions that

19:43

help us be an even better version of who

19:45

we already are. The solutions

19:48

cannot be just about lost because

19:50

we humans, we fear loss

19:52

more than we value gain. And

19:54

so when we show people that there are solutions

19:57

that we can benefit from our health,

19:59

our well-being, even

20:01

the economy that addresses the

20:03

underlying issue and the religiously sounding

20:06

excuses go away.

20:07

She is emblematic, Katherine Hale, of

20:09

some of the confusion that's out there

20:11

in the world today. And for saints called

20:14

to be Bereans, and I love to point out the fact that

20:16

in acts were reminded that the Bereans weren't fact

20:18

checking the pagans, they were fact checking

20:21

Paul. And in this area in particular,

20:23

we're always called to be Bereans. But here I think

20:25

we need to be good Bereans. That

20:28

statement that you just heard filled with a boatload of

20:30

presuppositions. I'll unpack that in a bit,

20:32

but I want to reintroduce Doctor Calvin Beisner

20:34

and David Legates, both associated with the Cornwall

20:37

Alliance. Cal, of course, is the president.

20:39

David is the director of research and education.

20:41

They are co-editors and contributors

20:43

to a brand new, very important book,

20:45

Climate and Energy The Case

20:47

for realism. So

20:50

Cal, this is where I learned this from you. So let me take

20:52

what Katherine said and put it in front

20:54

of you, because you've taught me all

20:56

along for the years, and you and I have been friends

20:58

and we have worked together, that whatever

21:00

policy is posited out there, if it

21:02

does not lift my fellow man, if it does

21:05

not help him or her flourish, if in

21:07

fact bends their back with more

21:09

restrictions rather than more liberty

21:11

than it is not a policy that I want to

21:13

support going forward. Because no matter how much

21:15

we want to protect the environment, Chief among

21:18

God's creation is the only part of creation

21:20

made in man's image. That's you and

21:22

that's me. So let me go to the declaration

21:24

that she's made twice in the clips I've made so

21:26

far, which is the presupposition that

21:28

if you don't, uh, by

21:30

hook, line and sinker exactly what she's

21:32

selling theologically and in terms of her,

21:35

quote, science, that obviously

21:37

the pushback is I don't want to

21:39

fix it. I think that's sloppy.

21:41

I think it's intellectually vacuous,

21:43

and I think it's the antithesis of many

21:45

of us who say, I'm not going to buy that science,

21:47

because I don't think it's been substantiated. I think

21:49

it's been politicized. Break that down for us.

21:52

Well, Janet, as I listened

21:54

to both of those clips from

21:56

Katharine Hayhoe, I almost

21:58

wept because

22:01

both of them are

22:03

chock full of

22:06

violation of the ninth commandment.

22:09

You shall not bear false witness

22:11

against your neighbor. Now,

22:13

Katharine Hayhoe goes around saying,

22:16

anybody who doesn't buy into the notion

22:18

that human activity is causing

22:20

catastrophic climate change,

22:22

and therefore we must obey

22:25

andon the use of fossil fuels and replace

22:27

them with wind and solar, which are highly

22:29

diffuse and and unreliable

22:33

intermittent, expensive sources

22:35

of energy, whereas fossil

22:37

fuels are highly,

22:39

uh, highly con, uh

22:42

uh, condensed and uh

22:45

uh uh uh, reliable,

22:49

inexpensive energy sources.

22:51

She says anybody who doesn't go along

22:54

with her on that doesn't care

22:56

about the poor and only wants to promote

22:58

to preserve his or her

23:01

own standard of living.

23:03

That is simply

23:06

false. And it is an

23:08

ad hominem attack. It's an attack on

23:10

the person. The fact is

23:12

that solid scientists, like

23:15

the nine climate scientists who contributed

23:17

to this book, among them some of the world's

23:19

foremost, disagree

23:22

with her about the science. And

23:24

instead of questioning motives,

23:26

she needs to actually engage the

23:28

science. But you know what she does,

23:30

Janet? On her,

23:32

uh, her X or Twitter

23:35

account, she simply blocks

23:37

climate scientists who question her

23:40

as she did, for example, to Vijay

23:42

Jayaraj, who formerly

23:44

worked with the Cornwall Alliance, now works

23:46

with the CO2 coalition.

23:48

And Vijay questioned some

23:50

of her science and she simply blocked him.

23:53

That's the common response

23:55

that she gives. No,

23:57

this book is designed

23:59

to help ordinary people

24:02

to understand difficult

24:04

scientific and economic and

24:06

energy and engineering concepts.

24:09

Every single chapter begins

24:11

with a summary

24:13

that makes its basic points

24:16

and conclusions clear and simple

24:18

for ordinary people to understand. And

24:20

then you get the solid,

24:22

scholarly stuff that continues from

24:25

there. And yet it also is clear

24:27

I would challenge Katharine Hayhoe

24:29

to actually read this book

24:31

and then respond to the arguments

24:34

instead of attacking the people behind

24:36

them.

24:37

Hear, hear. Well said. Thank you. Cal.

24:39

The book we're talking about is called Climate

24:41

and Energy The Case for realism,

24:44

444 pages long.

24:46

Sound science. If you want to know how the environment

24:49

works, there's a major chunk of the book that does

24:51

just that. But also it's about moving

24:53

forward what we do.

24:56

If you were to fix climate change, what would the world

24:58

look like? Would it be better or would it be worse

25:00

back after this? Are

25:06

you the sort of person who likes to have the inside

25:09

scoop? Who wants to be informed? When

25:11

you become a partial partner, you're not only keeping

25:13

this program on the air every weekday, you'll

25:15

also receive exclusive benefits like personal

25:17

emails from me. I'll help you learn how to look

25:19

at the headlines with a biblical perspective.

25:21

Become a partial partner today by

25:23

calling 877 Janet 58,

25:26

or go online to in the market

25:28

with Janet parshall.org.

25:33

I'm increasingly convinced that

25:36

we cannot fix this without

25:38

individual action, but

25:41

that the most important individual action

25:43

we can take has nothing

25:45

to do with our personal

25:47

carbon footprint. Because

25:50

if those of us who have

25:52

the resources, the

25:54

knowledge, and in some

25:56

cases even the money to make

25:59

the right decisions, even if we did everything we

26:01

could. We wouldn't

26:03

be making the best choice for everyone.

26:05

Also, the easiest and most affordable. We

26:07

need system wide change. We need

26:09

the default choice for everyone to get

26:12

where they're going in Seattle to be public

26:14

transportation because it's so cheap or

26:16

free and faster than anything

26:18

else. And if that

26:20

doesn't work for them, then we need the default choice

26:22

for a vehicle to be an electric vehicle.

26:25

Maybe like, you know, like a Zipcar or a rent

26:27

or, you know, you just share the vehicle rather

26:29

than having to own your own. Or if you live out

26:31

in the country, we need the easiest and

26:33

cheapest way for people to get around to be an

26:35

electric truck, not an

26:37

internal combustion truck. We need

26:39

to change the no brainer choices.

26:42

The same for food, the same for

26:44

how we heat and cool our homes. All

26:46

of those choices. The default needs to be

26:48

the best choice, not the worst choice.

26:50

Right now it's the worst choice. So how do

26:52

we change that? We change that

26:55

with our voice. So when people ask

26:57

me now, what can I do? If you go

26:59

to most of my social media accounts, any

27:01

social media account where you can pin anything to the top,

27:03

and I'll show you here at the very

27:05

top of my account, you will see if

27:08

you're worried about climate change and you don't know

27:10

what to do. Here are the top six things.

27:12

Number one. Start a conversation

27:14

that connects the head to the heart, to the hands.

27:17

Why does it matter to me and what can

27:19

we do about it? What is my school

27:21

doing about it? What am I doing it personally? What

27:23

about my family? What about the place where I work?

27:25

What about my church? Number two join

27:27

a climate action group and amplify your

27:29

voice. Number three, consider

27:32

where you keep your money. It turns

27:34

out that if we keep $1,000

27:36

in a bank account in a bank

27:38

that funds fossil fuels, that

27:41

thousand dollars were produced the same amount of

27:43

carbon pollution over a year as

27:45

flying from Seattle to New York.

27:48

Wow.

27:49

Wow. Katharine Hayhoe, by the way.

27:51

Again, she is not only associated

27:53

as the chief scientist with The Nature Conservancy,

27:55

she's also part of Texas Tech

27:57

University, where she

28:00

is a professor and chair in

28:02

Public Policy and Public Law in the Public

28:04

Administration Program of the Department of Political

28:06

Science. Doctors Calvin Beisner

28:08

and David Legates are with us, both associated

28:11

with the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of

28:13

Creation. Cal is the president of

28:15

the organization and David is now

28:17

currently the Director of Research and Education.

28:20

It's a tremendous book that we're talking

28:22

about. Hot off the presses, quite literally.

28:24

Cal and David are co-editors

28:27

as well as contributors to the book, and

28:29

it's called Climate and Energy The

28:31

Case for realism, realism

28:33

being the operative word. So, David, let me turn to

28:35

you because, again, for the average American, not those

28:37

who move in and out of the circles of scientific dialogue,

28:39

but for the average person who's downstream

28:42

and is being talked at not

28:44

being talked with about this subject, and quite frankly,

28:47

they are the recipient of a whole lot of fear mongering.

28:49

So obviously the big bag monster

28:51

in the room happens to be CO2,

28:53

carbon dioxide. I was thrilled

28:55

when I read your chapter about the role of greenhouse

28:58

gases because, again, if somebody skipped class

29:00

that day and they didn't get it when they were in science class

29:02

in high school, they don't understand

29:04

about the role of CO2. I

29:07

fell in we've had this conversation, the three of us,

29:09

before, but I don't remember the day

29:11

emblazoned over the top of the New

29:13

York Times front page above the fold.

29:16

We suddenly decided that CO2 was a

29:18

pollutant. But from this point forward,

29:20

obviously it's a boo bad, terrible, awful thing.

29:22

In fact, you just heard Katharine Hayhoe talking

29:24

about our carbon footprint.

29:26

She also talked about collectivism, which

29:28

has shades of Marxism. But I won't go down

29:30

that road. Let me go back to CO2

29:33

and stick to the science rather than the poli sci.

29:35

What is what is CO2 and is it

29:37

a bad, terrible, awful thing?

29:39

CO2 is a gas

29:42

that is an elixir of life. You

29:44

wouldn't have. You wouldn't have plants

29:46

if you didn't have carbon dioxide. And

29:49

the issue is go into any commercial

29:51

greenhouse and you'll see probably

29:54

if it's a large enough greenhouse, you'll see a box

29:56

in the corner. And if you ask what that

29:58

box does is it produces

30:00

carbon dioxide. Why is that?

30:03

Because even people in greenhouses

30:05

know that if you provide

30:07

the plants with more carbon dioxide,

30:10

they grow faster, they grow more

30:12

efficiently. In fact, they grow more efficiently

30:14

with respect to the use of water. They

30:16

require less water because the stomates

30:19

don't have to open as far to allow

30:21

in carbon dioxide. So

30:23

why would a greenhouse put

30:25

a pollutant into the greenhouse,

30:28

which potentially could kill everything

30:30

that they're trying to market because

30:33

it won't kill it? In fact, it will

30:35

assist it. So a warmer world,

30:37

a greener world comes from

30:39

a more carbon dioxide enriched

30:41

world. And so when we start

30:43

talking about carbon dioxide

30:45

as a a pollutant,

30:47

it is a shell game because

30:50

it's not a pollutant. It's a pollutant

30:52

in the sense that this

30:54

has been the the economic change

30:56

model to get the rich

30:59

of the world that has developed themselves

31:01

by finding a way to get inexpensive

31:03

energy and to take from

31:05

them and give to the poor. I mean, when when

31:08

Katharine Hayhoe talks about moving

31:10

everyone together and I assume she's

31:12

following, um, Matthew

31:15

22, which says the whole law

31:17

and the prophets can be summarized

31:19

into put God first and

31:21

care for everyone else. Uh, equally.

31:23

The idea somehow to her is to make us

31:26

all equal at the bottom, not

31:28

equal by moving everyone up.

31:30

And that's what bothers me with

31:32

with this idea. I mean, I come back

31:34

to her argument that we need to get off

31:37

carbon dioxide. We need to get off fossil

31:39

fuels. There's a hashtag on

31:41

X that is keep it in

31:43

the ground. And when I first saw

31:45

that hashtag when I first actually before

31:48

then heard her talking about we

31:50

need to keep these fossil fuels in

31:52

the ground immediately. Matthew 25

31:55

and the parable of the talents came to mind.

31:57

The the two um,

32:00

uh, first servants came out. They did what they

32:02

were supposed to do. They were they were

32:04

commended for it. The third one comes

32:06

around and it doesn't say, you know, you

32:08

gave Lord, you gave me one talent. I

32:10

went out and squandered it and lost it all.

32:13

That's not what happened. He says, look, I

32:15

have exactly what you gave to us. Here

32:17

it is. Let me go dig it up. I've hidden it in

32:19

the ground. Let me dig it up. Give it

32:21

back to you. Just as you gave it to us.

32:25

And what happened? He was called worthless

32:27

servant and kicked out essentially into

32:29

the wilderness. Into the night.

32:32

And the problem the here

32:34

is that if we do

32:36

the same thing, if we get to the end of

32:39

time and God says, what did you

32:41

do in my name to assist the poor?

32:43

And we said, oh, you gave us all

32:45

these resources that we could have done to make.

32:47

Are life better to build up humankind

32:50

to? To spread your name and your

32:52

gospel with it. Instead, we just kept

32:54

it right here in the ground. Here we have it exactly

32:57

as you gave it to us. We too

32:59

will be called wicked slaves.

33:02

Mm. Wow. Wow.

33:04

So, Cal, let me turn to you at this point

33:06

because, uh, in fact, I'm going to tap into

33:08

your ability as a theologian. I

33:10

think David's spot on. I think that's pretty sloppy,

33:12

eisegesis, because it certainly can't be exegesis.

33:15

And while David was talking,

33:17

I was thinking of the stereotypical recipient

33:20

of these policies that you taught me years ago.

33:22

So there's that mom in Africa who tonight

33:24

is cooking her dinner over a dung

33:27

of heap of fire. That's how she's going

33:29

to cook. She's breathing in carcinogens.

33:31

She has a baby on her back. That

33:33

baby is being exposed to carcinogens as

33:35

well. She has to walk miles

33:37

to get water to bring it back to her hut

33:40

where she lives. I'm

33:42

not quite sure how an electric vehicle

33:44

is going to help her, or how

33:46

solar or wind power is going to help

33:48

her. Electricity is what she needs.

33:51

That comes from coal. Why is that a bad, terrible,

33:53

awful thing?

33:55

It is not a bad, terrible, awful

33:57

thing at all. Janet. And, uh,

33:59

let me just back up for just a moment

34:02

and add a little more response

34:04

to what Hayhoe said,

34:06

because she does demonize,

34:08

uh, carbon dioxide as,

34:11

uh, as a pollutant because of

34:13

its warming effect in the Earth.

34:15

Now, there is a factual

34:17

scientific question here. In fact,

34:19

there are a number of them that ought to be looked at.

34:22

One does CO2

34:24

actually warm the atmosphere?

34:27

Two how much does it

34:29

warm the atmosphere? Three

34:31

what other things might contribute

34:34

to warming? Four can

34:36

we assign all or even a lot

34:38

of the recent warming to CO2?

34:41

Now, David has written

34:43

for the Cornwall Alliance on,

34:45

for example, the fact that

34:48

in geologic history,

34:50

temperature change precedes

34:54

carbon dioxide increase

34:56

rather than following it by

34:58

anywhere from about 200 years to

35:00

nearly a thousand years. And

35:03

what that means is CO2 cannot

35:05

be the primary driver

35:07

of warming. Now, Katharine Hayhoe

35:10

chooses not to, uh, grapple

35:12

with things like that. Uh, perhaps

35:15

because it's so much easier just to

35:17

attack the motives of people with

35:19

whom she disagrees. But

35:22

that's not that's not good

35:24

logic. It's not, uh,

35:26

it's not loving one's neighbor. And

35:28

it's certainly not good science.

35:30

Now, as far as the poor around the world

35:32

are concerned, what they desperately

35:35

need is abundant, affordable,

35:37

reliable energy because making

35:40

food, clothing, shelter, transportation,

35:42

communication, uh, medical care,

35:45

education, everything we

35:47

do requires energy. And the more energy

35:49

we can apply, the more we can produce

35:51

of all of those things on which human

35:54

thriving depends. Hayhoe

35:56

wants us to turn to,

35:59

uh, energy sources that are

36:01

unreliable, that are

36:03

diffuse, that are therefore

36:06

very expensive. Um, we

36:08

want to see people all around the world

36:11

able to use the abundant, affordable, reliable

36:13

sources of energy that actually lift them

36:15

and keep them out of poverty.

36:17

And since poverty is a far greater threat

36:20

to human health and life than

36:22

anything related to the climate

36:24

which is shown, for instance, by the fact

36:27

that over the last hundred years, human

36:29

mortality rates due to extreme weather

36:31

have fallen by more than 98%.

36:33

Therefore, overcoming poverty

36:35

is a far greater need

36:38

than anything we might do related

36:40

to climate. And Katharine Hayhoe,

36:42

unfortunately doesn't grapple

36:44

with that fact.

36:46

That's why I love this subtitle of the new book, Climate

36:49

and Energy The Case for realism.

36:51

I would add one word. I would say it's not only the case

36:54

for realism, but it's the case for

36:56

compassion back after this.

37:05

And tumor. A tumor. Now

37:09

look. Look.

37:11

My look. Now

37:15

you know who you are. Now.

37:19

Wakey wakey wakey

37:23

wakey, granny! Ooh

37:27

I want my I want my,

37:29

I want. My

37:32

own. Why, why should

37:34

I ooh ooh.

37:37

Ooh okay, you

37:39

get the drift. Let me explain what that is. That

37:41

is a shamanistic ritual taking

37:43

place at Davos this year

37:45

at the World Economic Forum.

37:47

It was a plenary session entitled

37:49

Climate and Nature. A systemic response

37:52

is needed. And that pagan Chieftess

37:55

is part of a tribe that

37:57

comes out of Amazon, the Amazon

37:59

area. And part of her

38:01

blowing, which is what you heard in that sound,

38:03

was done to all the participants. Second person

38:05

to receive that shamanistic blessing,

38:08

quote unquote, Doctor Katherine Hale,

38:10

just connecting all the dots for you. Don't think for

38:12

one minute there isn't a theology tied

38:14

into all of this as well. We're talking

38:16

to Doctor Calvin Beisner and Doctor David Legates,

38:18

both of them Co-contributors

38:21

co-editors, working side by side

38:23

at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of

38:25

Creation. David, the president and founder.

38:27

And David, of course, is now

38:29

very much involved in research and

38:31

education. Their book together is called

38:33

Climate and Energy The Case for realism.

38:35

I have, by the way, I want to underscore to my friends

38:38

again, this book is massive. It's

38:40

seminal, it's important. It's going to be a game changer.

38:42

And I have literally gone down barely

38:45

one layer of what is more than a seven layer

38:47

salad here. So if it's got you thinking,

38:49

get the book and read the rest for yourself. It's

38:51

absolutely fascinating, but I want to pick up on this

38:53

idea of the CO2. And

38:55

David turned to you at this point because again,

38:57

as you just pointed out, what

38:59

sits in the greenhouse and it's not

39:01

a toxin, by the way, then why all this

39:03

conversation from Davos to the white House

39:06

about net zero by

39:08

a specific date? How do we take what

39:10

God created as part of his ecology

39:13

and suddenly declare it a pollutant and eradicated

39:15

completely? And if we do, what happens?

39:19

See, this is I hate to say it, but this

39:21

is literally a shell game. Let me

39:23

steal a line from, uh, George

39:25

Orwell's 1984. I mean, if you look

39:27

at everything Katherine has said

39:29

in all of your quotes, she's essentially

39:31

saying CO2, bad wind

39:34

and solar good. And

39:36

the concern is that you you the

39:38

unstated argument that she's making

39:40

is that fossil fuels

39:43

produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

39:45

It is a pollutant. It causes rising

39:48

temperatures. It's going to cause more tornadoes,

39:50

more hurricanes, more floods, more droughts,

39:53

all of the bad climate things that we

39:55

have. And if we just

39:57

went to wind and solar, you would see nice

39:59

wind turbines spinning. You would see

40:02

solar panels sitting there, absorbing

40:04

the solar radiation, converting energy

40:06

in a very clean and green manner.

40:09

And the the argument

40:11

is it's they're not clean.

40:13

They're not green. If you understand

40:16

where the materials come from, you

40:18

realize they people pay

40:21

a very big expense to get

40:23

them. And in many cases it's with their

40:25

lives. In this case, how

40:27

do we get the the rare earth minerals,

40:29

for example, that are required

40:31

to produce batteries for her,

40:34

electric vehicles that are required to

40:36

produce the wind turbines and the solar

40:38

panels? Well, it comes from

40:40

open pit mining. Essentially,

40:42

what you do is you strip off large

40:44

portions of the ground. You treat

40:46

the ground with various toxins.

40:49

It requires a lot of water. In some

40:51

places, such as the Democratic

40:54

Republic of the Congo, in

40:56

Southeast Asia, in places in

40:58

South America, you get large

41:00

toxic lakes. And in some

41:02

of these places, particularly in the Congo, it

41:04

is processed by people

41:06

who are slave labor and who

41:08

are child labor. So let's stop

41:11

and think about this for a moment. What we're saying

41:13

is, let's go from

41:15

carbon dioxide, which we realize

41:17

is not a pollutant, but is a life

41:19

affirming gas that makes life

41:22

better, that makes for plants, makes

41:24

life better for animals, makes life

41:26

better for humans. Effectively, everything

41:28

on the planet that's alive. And

41:31

we're going to replace it with a

41:33

process that requires you to

41:35

produce an environmental degradation

41:38

on the surface to get the things out.

41:40

And what does it require to get

41:42

out? It's going to require more energy, first

41:45

of all, and where's that energy coming from?

41:47

But the second thing is it's going to require

41:50

human toll. Some of

41:52

these people working on this are going to

41:54

have our slave labor.

41:56

Some of them are child labor. And nevertheless,

41:58

everybody that's working in it is going

42:01

to have a health problem associated

42:03

with directly trying to pull

42:05

this material out of the ground. So

42:07

I argue the question is then, which

42:09

is more compassionate, as you said,

42:12

with the title of the book, which would

42:14

be more compassionate? Is it to use

42:16

a gas which isn't a pollutant, which

42:18

makes life better, or is it to

42:20

produce this, these materials

42:22

through processes which are going

42:24

to destroy people? And again, where

42:26

are we doing this? What we're not allowing this in the United

42:28

States, but we're allowing it in third world

42:30

countries, which is where the poor live.

42:33

So who's going to suffer more from

42:35

extracting this? It's the poor.

42:37

These are the very people she purports

42:39

to try to save.

42:41

Oh, and then adding to that,

42:43

the the coda at the end, of

42:45

course, is that these batteries are ultimately going to be

42:47

produced and mass with communist China,

42:49

where we have a geopolitical relationship

42:51

that's rife with problems in a kind of schizophrenic

42:54

approach to the clash of world

42:56

views. So it just it's stunning to

42:58

me. So, Cal, this becomes a philosophical

43:00

question. Maybe it's a theological one as

43:02

well, which is David just laid out crystal

43:05

clear, the undeniable science about CO2,

43:07

child labor, the carcinogens,

43:10

the damage that it's going to cause, the hyper expense

43:12

that's going to make most people, by the way,

43:14

who have set early opinions here in

43:16

the United States. Thanks, but no thanks. We're not interested

43:18

in your EVs. Overwhelmingly. Why

43:21

would anyone advance this? There

43:23

has to be something sinister. Is

43:25

there something under the surface we're

43:27

not seeing? Because you cannot

43:29

deny what David just said. So why

43:31

would people advocate knowing it's not

43:34

compassionate, it's not realistic, and it's

43:36

not cheap?

43:37

I will not speculate as to Catherine

43:40

Hoho's motivations, but I can

43:42

tell you that China is playing

43:44

the West like a violin. China

43:47

is using climate policy to

43:49

promote its own power and wealth,

43:52

and that's a very,

43:54

very deeply disturbing thing for

43:56

the West. And our our leaders need

43:59

to wake up and see what's happening

44:01

here. And let me add real quickly,

44:03

we have challenged Katharine Hayhoe

44:05

to debate repeatedly over

44:08

more than a decade. She hasn't even responded,

44:10

let alone accepted. I'll repeat

44:12

that challenge now. And

44:15

further, anybody who wants to understand better

44:17

about her can simply, uh,

44:19

Google her name and restrict

44:21

the search to Cornwall Alliance

44:24

org, and you'll find

44:26

dozens or multiple

44:29

articles that examine her theology,

44:31

as well as her science. She

44:33

is not a good spokesperson

44:36

for evangelicals on this issue.

44:39

Thank you so much, Janet, for having us on.

44:41

And by the way, through the end of the month

44:43

of April, we will, as our way of

44:45

saying thank you to anyone who makes any

44:47

donation to the Cornwall Alliance and requests

44:50

it send a free copy of Climate

44:52

and Energy The.

44:52

Case for realism. Excellent. And

44:54

I have a link to their website in my information page.

44:57

Gentlemen, thank you so much. See you next time, friends.

44:59

Retractable claws up to 1.5in

45:02

long, capable

45:04

of jumping 36ft. A

45:07

roar that can be heard five miles away.

45:11

The lion King of the beasts.

45:13

Picture yourself surrounded by several.

45:16

Like Daniel, he determined

45:18

to prey, though he knew he

45:20

would pay. Are we willing to face

45:22

the lions of our culture? Be

45:24

a Daniel. A challenge for Moody

45:27

Radio.

45:29

How long have you been a part of the Moody Radio

45:32

family?

45:32

Well, I've been listening to Moody since 1983,

45:35

and, I mean, I get

45:37

up with Moody, I go to bed with Moody, and I just.

45:39

It's been a blessing in my life for all these

45:41

years. The teaching and the

45:43

worship. And Moody is a station

45:46

that is really rooted in

45:48

the Word of God. In the series about

45:50

who is God.

45:51

Serious about God? That's us.

45:53

And we're seriously grateful for listeners

45:56

like you.