Ken Ham: Global Warming Caused by Global Flood

Ken Ham makes me laugh a lot. He has one and only one answer to absolutely any question, no matter how absurd that makes his argument. In a recent post, he fumes about being considered a global warming denier. Why, he thinks global warming is real, he just think it’s caused by that global flood that never happened.

I want to emphasize that we do not deny climate change. Even Bill Nye continues to spread the false charge against us that we supposedly deny climate change! What we do deny are the worldview-based assumptions behind the interpretations of what causes climate change. Climate change is observational science (we can observe it by recording measurements), but it needs to be interpreted as to why it’s happening—and your starting point determines your interpretation. Starting from the Bible, we know that there was a global Flood a few thousand years ago that completely changed Earth’s surface and climate, and that the earth is still settling down from this catastrophe. So we should expect there to be some variations in climate change, but this is not alarming and is not the direct result of modern human activity. That’s why when I was interviewed live on the Piers Morgan show on CNN after the debate (with Bill Nye sitting beside me) and was asked, “Why do you deny climate change?”—I answered that I did not deny climate change and went on to say that climates have been changing ever since the Flood.

This is some seriously stupid and dishonest propaganda. Of course climates have changed over time. No one denies that — other than Ham, who absurdly believes that prior to this mythical flood, climate was absolutely static. But when scientists talk about climate change, they don’t mean that the climate changes over time, they’re talking about the dramatic change in greenhouse gas levels since the industrial revolution and the enormous impact that has had on ocean temperatures. Does Ham know that? I don’t think it matters. He’s either ignorant or he’s lying.

"Socialism describes the idea that the purpose of government is to promote the equality of ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"It's not a strategic resource. The US, and Russia, both have plenty of uranium, and ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Do you know how hard it is to guard all the borders of our National ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    At least he’s honest about this part:

    Climate change is observational science … but it needs to be interpreted as to why it’s happening—and your starting point determines your interpretation. Starting from the Bible …

    As with all his “science,” he starts with the Bible and tries to fit the empiric facts into it and, if he can’t, he just lops off the troublesome bits. You might call it Procrustean science. But I don’t quite understand why he feels it necessary to lop off parts of anthropogenic climate change. Certainly the Bible doesn’t [cough] literally say that humans can’t mess up the world. One might suspect that he has another motive other than Biblical scholarship.

  • Kevin Kehres

    And, of course, completely ignoring the “Little Ice Age” between 1650 and 1850.

    Inconvenient things, those facts.

  • peterh

    This global flood, so beloved of Ham and his ilk, for which there isn’t the least bit of evidence . . . . .

  • peterh

    Oh! And: “He’s either ignorant or he’s lying.” I vote both.

  • timberwoof

    He starts off by trying to make political hay about how creationists (Answers In Genesis creationists) do not deny climate change as though that would help support his point. Bill Nye needs to be clear abut what positions he says his debate opponents actually take. While Ken Ham is not technically a climate-change denier, he denies that the climate change is what scientists say it is and that humans are the cause.

  • peterh

    Climate change is indeed what the scientists say it is, but it’s far from demonstrated that humans are THE cause. A contributing cause, most certainly; a significant cause, quite likely, but THE cause, no.

  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    Sorry Ken, god’s little rainbow said it was all over and he’d never do it (well, exactly the same way) again. It wasn’t a sign that said “expect climate to change here and there occasionally as the world readjusts from a ridiculous amount of water that was suddenly part of the planet and just as suddenly gone”. Even assuming we would be looking at some isostatic rebound, it would be long over and completely uncorrelated with climate changing. God did not say, imply, or cause any of that, and I really wish you’d stop being a false prophet twisting his holy word and falsely using his holy actions for your own agenda. May you be smacked upside the head by his holy rainbow. (Yeah, my imprecatory prayer for the day.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Peterh@3

    …the least bit of evidence…

    But, but! The summit of Mt. Everest is composed of marine limestone! Surely that proves that it was once covered by an ocean. Or something…

  • Michael Heath

    peterh writes:

    This global flood, so beloved of Ham and his ilk, for which there isn’t the least bit of evidence . . . . .

    That’s a trivial problem for YECs. Instead their idea of a global flood a few thousand years ago has been convincingly falsified from a large number of scientific perspectives.

  • Michael Heath

    peterh writes:

    Climate change is indeed what the scientists say it is, but it’s far from demonstrated that humans are THE cause. A contributing cause, most certainly; a significant cause, quite likely, but THE cause, no.

    Not true. Measured anthropogenic radiative forcing components, both positive and negative, overwhelm measured natural forcings. See the top graph on page 697 of the AR5’s Chapter 8. The entire chapter covers radiative forcings. Link: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf . Please note the level of certainty these scientists use when reporting their findings.

    This in spite of our slowly marching towards the next ice age prior to the rise of the industrial age: http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • peterh

    @ #10,

    Thanks. I’m saving that.

  • Al Dente

    He’s either ignorant or he’s lying.

    These are not mutually exclusive choices.

  • Doc Bill

    Hambo is neither ignorant nor lying. Hambo runs a creationism business and pulls in millions of dollars a year selling the Flood. All Hambo cares about is raking in the green and I don’t mean kale chips!

  • https://www.facebook.com/KarlGoldsmith Karl Goldsmith

    Ken has to keep changing what he claims, as Bill Nye made reference to what Ken himself said, after the debate on CNN with Piers Morgan. And here is what Ken said, no warming, only cooling.

    https://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-with-ken-ham/volume-112/global-warming-1/

  • lofgren

    You would think that somebody who believes that the world was once flooded higher than the summit of Mt. Ararat and that the ens of the world is quite imminent would be VERY concerned about climate change.