72 thoughts on “Global Warming (Jack Chick)”

  1. I had to click on the tract and read it. It was new to me. But after a while all chick tracts begin to look alike. Ya gotta hand it to this guy, he’s prolific. How long has he been writing tracts? I’ve got a good pile of them. This one’s new though. 😀

    1. Jack T. Chick started in the early 1960s; his business began in the mid 1960s (I think)….I know his office in LA county has been around since the the 1970s. By the mid 1970s he had Fred Carter (a decent comics artist) doing more of his hard-edged tracts, and by 1977 he was working with Alberto Riviera the fake Jesuit and John Todd the fake Satanist. According to Daniel Reburn’s `zine “The Imp”, whatever credibility Chick had in Christian publishing was shot by the early 1980s.

      1. We had a supporting church in Pennsylvania that sent us a dozen page survival guide in which they said that they were stockpiling food, fuel, and guns and buying horses to replace their cars in preparation for the inevitable meltdown.

        I wish I still had it. It was amazing.

        1. Weird, I attended HAC at that time and they never said anything about it. My home church was also very fundy and I remember the Pastor really downplaying the seriousness of Y2K.

        1. And Kent is used quite a bit in the “God’s Cartoonist” documentary on Jack Chick as well. (see link somewhere below here) According to Kent, Jack “may be responsible for more people going to heaven than anybody ever in the history of humanity.” 12:08 on the documentary.

          Really Kent? And that folks is the problem with decisional,man-centered evangelism… God only plays a supporting roll in salvation.

        2. Don, I hate it when people make claims like that. The Bible says that some plant, some water, but GOD gives the increase. It’s not of us. Why would someone even make such a statement except to make themselves seem more important in the eyes of others, to “justify” their ministry, or to garner financial support?

        3. @PW
          I believe you summed up Kent Hovind’s ministry pretty well with that description.

          In fact you gave a working definition for a great many IFB ministries, and that is both sad and disturbing. I don’t know if you saw Darrell’s link to this year’s SOTL conference on the SFL FB edition but you also just summed up the whole conference.

      2. Narhan, were you breathing in 1999? Doom, gloom, and rapture predictions were everywhere in fundy pulpits. Of course, the fundy redaction machine got rid of the forums, threads, sermons, etc as soon as their blunder was clear.

        1. 🙂 I was breathing. Like I said I attended HAC at that time, which as everyone knows is the “pulse of fundamentalism” (*snicker) My home church was also a large IFB church and I distinctly remember my pastor preaching a sermon that basically said the fallout from Y2K would be minimal at most.

    1. I had Sunday school teachers back in the sixties explaining about the 7 dispensations of time and how we were approaching the final judgement around the year 2000. Later I saw many ads on late night television for a book by Hal Lindsey about the approach of the end times. Since then the ‘Left Behind” books were major best sellers base on the same eschatology – if not now, soon. And I can’t forget Harold Camping and his string of unfulfilled rapture prophecies.

  2. Believing that certain chemical reactions are taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere is clearly unChristian and unBiblical. 🙄

    He makes the usual mistake of confusing climate and weather. If you are going to contradict something you should at least learn about what it is you are contradicting. Otherwise you just look stupid. That has never slowed Chick down though.

    When extremist, discredited enviromentalists make unfounded predictions that means all of science is wrong or course. 🙄

    How did I know he would pivot to Catholicism? This guy really hates them Cathlicks.

    No surprise this group is listed as a hate group.

    1. I never knew Chick was listed as a hate group until I read your post. But that is exactly how Chick Publications should be considered… hateful. There’s none of God’s love in this.

  3. “England still exists. Ask any Muslim.”

    I don’t get this. And why the picture of the large grinning Arabic guy with a sword with his flag looming over the Union Jack? Well, of course, we know why. It’s fear-mongering, but I don’t understand why he chose to insert this here in this tract. As an English teacher, I’d have to say stick with the topic and don’t pull in distracting comments about other things unrelated to the main theme.

    1. DEFINITELTY not defending this daft tract, LOL….BUT, England is very muslim these days. There are some areas, you simply do NOT go into if you are caucasian. Muhammad was even listed as the second most popular baby name in England a few years ago. However, not sure why he had to mention this is the tract……

        1. let me clarify…LONDON. Not the whole of england, def not the whole of europe. But yes, LOTS in London. Again, not quite sure why it was a relevant thing to throw into the tract……..haha

      1. When did this happen? Cause on this website I’m not seeing it break past 20 much less anywhere near 2 for the entire last decade. And this website shows a gradual incline in the popularity of the name, but that it its peak (current) is only 31 in the country.

        1. So if you add every last variation of the name it takes the title. That is fine, though I wonder if you add up every variation in the US where that same name would be. I looked a minute ago and they were all just about the same popularity level. Individually not very high, but if you took every last variation I bet it gets up there.

          Of course direct comparison wouldn’t tell you much since the number of births and population demographics account for a lot. Though the same could be said for drawing conclusions based only on the use of the name for baby names.

        2. Do you know any Christian, Jews, or Atheists who have named their kid Mohammed?

          Serious question.

        3. No, but I also don’t know any Muslim parents who have done so either…and I do know Muslim people. So again I’m just not sure what you can derive exactly by the statistic. Well let me put it this way. I suppose that you could say there *seems* to be a lot of Muslim babies born, but you couldn’t say that for sure and if nothing else you couldn’t infer what, EscapedAlcatraz, inferred based only on that statistic, though if he has further evidence that is fine.

          Many names in today’s world bear little correlation to strict ethnic or religious backgrounds as they once did. That is especially true in the US, though I’d imagine it is also true in the UK. Obviously the line is blurred or less blurred for certain names, Muhammed being a prime example of the latter, but that doesn’t stop a parent from naming their child that even if they aren’t Muslim. An example of the former is Mark. In ages past that name was mostly associated with the Biblical character, but you wouldn’t assume that if today that name topped the charts that therefore there are more Christians living in the UK.

          All I’m saying is that the statistic by itself doesn’t tell the full story. I’m not saying that there isn’t an influx of Muslims moving into the UK and I’m not saying that likely 99% of those babies are born to Muslim parents, but on its own it really doesn’t tell us that much. Take Obama’s name. To a lot of us it sounds Muslim and in fact it is due to his ethnic background, but that doesn’t make Obama a Muslim nor was he born one just because he was given the name. With Islam the line between race and religion is very blurred, but names don’t necessarily clear that up for us.

      2. “BUT, England is very muslim these days.”

        And the most popular food in England is curry. And Jaguar and Land Rover are owned by an Indian company.

        Eh, England are the ones who wanted an empire. They shouldn’t be surprised that it followed them home.

  4. Is this guy still making tracts? I grew up with these things. He was hateful then and he’s hateful now. Just because science makes some educated guesses that don’t come 100% to pass does not mean that it should be equated with Nostradamos. Honestly! I’ve got to say that I am surprised with the fundy attitude toward global climate change. One thing I was always taught, and that I teach my babies, is that with dominion comes responsibility. The concern for the things entrusted to our care by the Bible seems to be missing in this equation. 🙄

  5. After viewing the tract, some observations:

    So, Satan is just an older, angry Yoda?

    Isn’t it hypocritical to malign others for changing scripture, them portray Satan so obviously false?

    A little proofreading would make him look a little less idiotic. In hard times, there’s winners and losers.

    At least the Occupy Sea World shirt was somewhat amusing.

    None of the priests I have met look like ogres. I guess that is one improvement from the Dark Ages.

  6. When I was attending Devil U, I first studied and learned about the impact that man was having on the climate and the environment in general in 1981. Way before it became a political issue or before the local fundy mog got a hold of it. This is just plain nonsense.
    I do have to give him credit for somehow weaving the Catholics into his fairytale. Throw in Al Gore and people smarter than them and you have the fundy trinity of hate.

  7. That seemed like one of the longest tracts of theirs that I’ve ever read! I couldn’t figure out where they were going with the story line. It seemed more scatter-brained than others of theirs I’ve read. I thought the drawings of Gore were hilariously realistic. :mrgreen:

  8. I just have one question. It is one that has confused me for a very long time. I understand that global warming/climate change tends to be a line drawn across political lines. IOW if you are a conservative/republican you tend to believe that the earth is not warming (perhaps more nuanced is that it isn’t man made global warming) and if you are more liberal/dem you believe the earth is warming (and perhaps more extreme is that it is caused solely by man made causes). So I get that. What I don’t get is why must global warming (man made or not) be false in order for the Bible to be right?

    I mean really isn’t that the point of this tract? I love how he pulls out a bunch of “scientific” predictions most of which were taken from the 70’s and pretends like those disprove global warming or climate change. But seriously what does that topic have to do with the Bible at all? What does it have to do with Christianity? What does it have to do with the Gospel? Nothing. And it is just a lame excuse to yet again politicize Christianity. Not that this guy was ever a fine example of evangelism, but now he is just a political shill and it is kind of sad to watch.

    1. Good point!

      I also don’t understand the relation between climate change and the Bible.

      If you read the tract, I think the point Jack Chick was making is that God is in charge of the world so we shouldn’t worry about it. (?)

      1. Than just say that. Why must you try and fail miserably, to disprove science. All he did was make him self look ignorant and stupid. If God is in control than just let him be. Why waist all the energy to try to disprove the theory. In fact, if we follow the Bible teaching of worry than in reality it is a stronger argument to allow global warming to exist. Than you can let God handle your worry. You can let God worry about the future. His line of logic is the exact opposite.

        Also I’d say that letting God worry about the future is fine though that is a pitiful excuse to ignore climate change.

        1. The attitude represented in this tract is why the “New Atheist” movement is claiming that Christianity is harmful to the world. If we start with the attitude of “Oh, God’s going to end the world anyway so why bother trying to conserve” the world as we know it is going to end by our own hand. Of course, the Richard Dawkinses of the world are just as uninformed as the Jack Chicks, but unless more moderate Christians publicly denounce the climate change skeptics, we’ll just get lumped in with the rest of them.

      2. Which to me, is dumb. The Bible says that we are stewards of God’s creation. Why should we not try to take care of it? I’ve never, ever understood the whole “let God deal with it, we are going to be raptured soon anyway” mentality. Shouldn’t they feel ashamed that they didn’t do as God asked and take care of what he left us?

        It’s like taking care of a friend’s pet while they’re on vacation. You don’t feed it, and just let it do whatever it wants. It dies, or gets very sick. Your friend returns and you say “Oh, I thought you had it under control.”

  9. If this is a relatively new tract on an issue like climate change which has been around for a while, then someone who’s less tired than I should insert the slowpoke meme.

    Also, ditto on the ‘they’re still making these?’ I read these horror stories as a kid. I wouldn’t let them in my house. With my kids… 😕

  10. A lot of this tract is a rehash of the one Titled “Escape” or “The Great Escape” from back in the 70’s. It was all about the ecology movement. If I remember correctly it was about pollution, world population and global cooling. (I’m trying to find a copy of the original)
    There is nothing new under the sun… the more things change, the more they remain the same.

  11. He forgot Harold Camping’s false prediction of the world ending in 1998 and 2011. But of course, nothing that will polarize the Fundy Christian faith will make it in there.

    1. I noticed that too!

      Why must fundies always paint everyone with the same brush? Just because a scientist may not be Christian doesn’t mean he’s a pagan or worships the earth.
      It’s just like my current fundy pastor saying all non-Baptist or non-denominational preachers are weak and wimpy. Gah, drives me crazy.

  12. ARGH! I forgot the first rule of SFL: never read before eating. it will spoil your appetite.

    I don’t know how many readers here have a background in rhetorical criticism, but the philosophical presuppositions in this little piece of work are important. The driving meme is conspiracy theory. Most sociologists agree that the dominant political paradigm in the West has shifted from democracy to conspiracy theory. The benefit of conspiracy theory is three-fold: the listener is always a victim, which plays to pride; the theory is non-falsifiable, which removes the burden of proof; and the theory can be infinitely adjusted to accommodate new data.

    As my Aunt says, there are those who are persuaded by facts, and those who are persuaded by emotion.

    P.S. The secondary meme of victim mentality is also noteworthy, but this is usually inherent in conspiracy theory.

  13. Okay,

    Stereo-typical Jewish caricatures, check.

    Catholics are teh evil, check.

    Scientists are teh evil, check.

    Hippy punching, check.

    Islamophobia, check.

    It would’ve won Fundy Talking Points Bingo except it’s missing “Obama is teh evil, Kenyan, socialist usurper”.

  14. This is the first Chick tract I’ve read in many, many years. Nothing has changed . . . sweeping generalizations, anti-Catholic diatribes, ethnic stereotyping, innuendo, all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hey, is this guy a gift to the church and to world evangelization, or what?

    1. And yet, churches still buy the things by the caseload.

      There are multiple boxes of “This Was Your Life” at my in-laws’ church. Every time I see one, I get a little sick to my stomach and think to myself, “Why do Christians think these help in delivering their message?”

  15. I saw a Chick tract titled “The Walking Dead” I assume Mr Chick (or his ghost writers) chose a current popular phrase and use it as title for a track. I would love to see a “Mad Men” tract, but that you discripe most fundies.

    1. I just discovered the show, “Mad Men”! Watched the first three season, maybe four. What a blast from the cultural past! Oh so totally not politically correct.

  16. I love how old Chick tracts depict Jesuit priests hiring women to seduce good Godly pastors so the Catholics will win. Yes, any IFB pastor who is caught cheating on his wife is the victim of a Jesuit priest!! Poor, poor man!

  17. I think if politics had no part, the fundies would be on the other side of the global warming issue and use it as part of their end times preaching. After all, doesn’t it say in Revelation that the sun shall scorch men?

  18. Just got done reading this, where to begin?
    Small quibble: where is Satan going to find a hoodie to cover those horns? 😀
    Nice to see Faceless God is still having people chucked into the Lake O’Fire for no real reason. “Name’s not on the list? Sorry, charlie, no soup for you!” “EEEYYAAaaaaa…” 🙄
    No wonder atheists jeer at us.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.