Global warming is presented as a political myth rather than established science. Environmentalism, once alarmed about global cooling, switched to warming when temperatures ticked slightly upward, using the issue to justify restrictions on business, expanded government regulation, massive funding, and liberal social policies. Thousands of scientists, including many climatologists and physicists, have signed petitions rejecting the claim that greenhouse gases cause catastrophic warming. Critics of the UN's projections call them inflated fairy tales. Past temperature variations, a negligible rise in carbon dioxide concentration, no appreciable warming since 1940, and the sun's changing activity are cited as evidence that human influence is small. Even full implementation of the Kyoto treaty would barely change temperatures, and the U.S. rightly refuses it because it burdens American industry while exempting China and India. Polar evidence is contested: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may be thickening, Antarctica may be cooling, and Arctic ice may have merely shifted rather than thinned. Climate science is complex, and the earth may balance itself. Biblically, God uses weather and disasters to bless or curse according to obedience (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28), and the prophesied ecological plagues of Revelation and the earth's eventual remaking make minor temperature fluctuations petty by comparison. Christians still have a duty to dress and keep the earth (Genesis 2:15), and God will avenge the earth for man's abuses (Revelation 11:18). Concern for the environment should rest on truth, pure motives, and respect for creation, not selfish political aims.

Human-caused global warming is a political hoax rather than a scientific reality. The environmental movement once predicted a coming ice age, and when the evidence refuted that, it reversed course and promoted warming, since temperatures were rising slightly. The real aim has always been political: restricting business, expanding government regulation and funding, and advancing liberal social policies. Because the ends are thought to justify the means, the science behind the warming claim is junk. International scientists who met on Capitol Hill challenged the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections of a 1.4 to 5.8 degree Celsius rise over the next century. They argued that the projections rest on extreme assumptions about population growth and fossil fuel use, that past temperature variations and carbon dioxide records show elevated CO2 does not necessarily bring climate change, and that no appreciable warming has occurred since 1940, which suggests human influence is small. They point instead to changes in solar activity as the primary driver of climate. Even full implementation of the Kyoto treaty would lower the world's average temperature by less than half a degree over fifty years. Concern for the environment is still a duty, however. Humanity is to dress and keep what God has given (Genesis 2:15), and God will avenge the earth for man's abuses (Revelation 11:18). That concern should rest on truth, pure motives, and respect for God's creation rather than selfish political aims.

Global warming caused by human activity is declared settled by its advocates, yet the data show no overall warming since 2001, and temperatures have recently been falling. Dissenters are branded heretics and skeptics, which makes the claim that the debate is over both a lie and tyrannical. Though mankind does pollute and corrupt the earth, and God promises to punish that (Revelation 11:18), man's ability to cause drastic climate change, short of a nuclear exchange, is nominal. Next to the great processes of nature that God designed, man is puny, as David's question "What is man?" (Psalm 8:4) suggests. Only a force as colossal as the sun could produce sudden global climate change. Solar observations point to an unusually quiet sun, with the lowest solar wind in fifty years, a record-long absence of sunspots between cycles 23 and 24, and a forecast of a very weak cycle 25. These signs suggest a possible new Maunder Minimum and a coming era of cold weather lasting decades. Because the environmental movement cares more about money and political control than about nature, these facts are ignored. Its advocates have shifted from "global warming" to "climate change" and continue to push cap and trade, compact fluorescent bulbs, exaggerated claims of rising sea levels, and polar bear imagery, even though the evidence runs the other way. Buy a good coat.

Global warming is real, but human activity is not its cause and cannot reverse it. Local tree planting or large-scale deforestation, as in Roman North Africa and Palestine, can change regional climate, yet global temperature swings track solar and supernova activity, which are beyond man's control. Tree rings, ice cores, and historical evidence point to a Medieval Climate Optimum (AD 800-1300) that predates industrialization, followed by a little ice age and a 1970s cooling scare that proved wrong. The Kyoto Treaty would lower temperature only negligibly while imposing heavy costs on the United States and exempting major emitters like China and India. Higher temperatures and carbon dioxide are largely beneficial, since the earth is greener, with longer growing seasons and better crop yields. Greenhouse gases are therefore good, consistent with God's command to multiply and His provision for mankind. The global warming movement is driven by dishonest scientists, a compliant media, and covetous developing-nation leaders seeking wealth redistribution. Behind it lies Satan's aim to impoverish people and destroy creation through a romantic myth that progress is evil and nature should reclaim man. This myth denies the commands to tend the Garden and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; 2:15). It is "science falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20), a deceiving doctrine of demons (I Timothy 4:1) from which believers must not stray.

Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global advocacy on manmade climate change, urging radical measures to address the imminent threat. Sharing the award with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hailed by Gore as the world's leading scientific body on the climate crisis, the recognition highlights their efforts to build and disseminate knowledge about this issue. However, the IPCC's reports have faced criticism for being policy statements masked by questionable scientific research, with recent reports showing a retreat from earlier severe projections on global warming, aligning now with normal historical temperature fluctuations. Without the activism-driven hysteria, the threat of global warming appears as little more than a standard climatic variation. Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has also been scrutinized for false and misleading claims. A British High Court judge ruled the film to be alarmist, exaggerated, and one-sided, identifying nine scientific errors, including exaggerated sea level rise predictions and questionable correlations between CO2 levels and temperature. The judge's findings undermine the film's emotional core, despite its broad accuracy on climate change being acknowledged. The Nobel Committee's justification for the award links potential extensive climate changes to threats against human living conditions, possibly inducing migration and resource competition, which could escalate into violent conflicts. Yet, this connection between climate change and world peace remains tenuous, prioritizing hypothetical future conflicts over current resource-driven struggles. The climate change narrative, as promoted, seems less about fostering peace and more about asserting control over human activity through restrictive treaties and regulations, particularly targeting industrialized nations.

Albert Gore, Jr., through his documentary *An Inconvenient Truth*, warns of sudden, disastrous, worldwide climate change due to global warming, predicting catastrophic consequences if the issue is ignored. He envisions a scenario where, any day now, people north of the Tropic of Cancer could be frozen solid or shivering in custom igloos. However, this portrayal overlooks substantial scientific evidence that contradicts his premise, such as the work of Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute. Michaels' books, *The Satanic Gases* and *Meltdown*, argue that while global temperatures have risen slightly over recent decades, the warming trend is gradual, natural, and unlikely to produce catastrophic results. He notes that temperatures rose more rapidly before 1940 without adverse effects. This perspective challenges the crisis narrative promoted by Gore, suggesting that global warming is a manufactured issue based on debatable science, often used to advance political agendas by creating fear and doubt among the populace.

Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's choice for head of the Environmental Protection Agency, staunchly opposes environmentalism and denies the scientific consensus on climate change. In a National Review opinion piece, Pruitt argued that healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy and that the debate on global warming remains unsettled, with scientists disagreeing on its degree, extent, and connection to human actions. Trump and many conservatives have labeled climate change a hoax, suggesting it is a deceptive narrative used to gain money and political power. They claim scientists seek government grants, politicians desire power, and businesses aim for financial benefits from environmental policies. Historically, the narrative shifted from global cooling in the early '70s to global warming, with warnings of rising seas and devastated coastlines, though recent data indicates global temperatures have remained static for the last dozen years. The term "climate change" now encompasses these fluctuations, replacing the back-and-forth between warming and cooling. Critics have exposed manipulated temperature data in climate models by environmentalist researchers, leading to billions spent on policies with minimal impact on temperature reduction. This reinforces the notion that climate change may indeed be a hoax, driven by fear tactics to extract money and power rather than reflecting long-term climate patterns, which change slowly over centuries.

The material presents concerns over the global atmosphere heating up from chemical gases as one element within a broader confession of environmental sins promoted by groups such as the National Council of Churches. These concerns are described as part of an urgent call to address the earth's crisis through scientific data and to foster a new ecological ethic that includes reverence for the earth as a living mother. The same material notes that scientists consider most of these concerns overblown and frames the emphasis on atmospheric heating as an aspect of Satan's deception through the environmental movement, which seeks to replace biblical truth with the worship of creation rather than the Creator. This approach is connected to the United Nations Environmental Sabbath program and its efforts to enlist religious leaders in establishing a new global covenant with the earth, an initiative that includes prayers, meditations, and services centered on ecological themes drawn from multiple faiths. In contrast, the material upholds the biblical commission in Genesis for humanity to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and exercise dominion while tending and keeping the garden, asserting that humans alone require spiritual salvation and possess the gifts of reason and revelation. The discussion of atmospheric heating thus serves to illustrate the shift toward an earth-centric theology that the material rejects in favor of proper stewardship under God's authority.