What Do Camping, Y2K and Al Gore Have in Common?

The following are three popular predictions of the past decade (or so). Their cost to society is something to consider:

  • 2011: Harold Camping claimed May 21, 2011, as end of the world. Cost of advertising: $80,000,000. That’s millions.
  • 2000: World chaos was predicted by the crash of the world’s computer systems. Cost to prepare: $500,000,000,000. That’s billions.
  • 2016: Al Gore predicted scorching heat that will debilitate the planet by 2016. Cost of re-engineering the world’s economies: $45,000,000,000,000. That’s trillions.

It’s disturbing to witness a cult pour their life savings into false prophets, but try to keep this in perspective. More disturbing to me is watching the news try to associate all Christ followers to these false prophets.

Some are quick to associate Christians to Harold Camping, a hasty generalization at its best. Camping was from a small sect of narrow-minded religious folks who obviously had twisted views of what it means to follow Christ. If anything, I will throw Harold Camping onto the pile of predictions that come and go, predictions based on fear. Their religion has little to do with their dysfunction.

From Love Another Child:

“Every decade seems to go through its own scary, doom-and-gloom scenarios. In the 90’s, the tropical rain forests were on a course for destruction, and the entire West was degenerating into a desert wasteland. Today the jungles of Brazil are just as thick as ever. Remember the evils of Y2K? … For the past several years, every bird flu outbreak has a predicted course of wiping out one-fifth of the world’s population. It never does.

“Parents should push against any theory, idea or even apparent scientific finding that flaunts its arrogance by posing as a fearmonger. Because the element consistent with all these doomsday scenarios is fear. Fear and change, that is. And usually change that involves money to invest, lives to change and freedom to surrender. Fear is a tool to control the masses, and it is precisely what is evidenced in the environmental movement.”

About Chris Jeub

Chris is the father of 16 children, busily running the family businesses and learning the depths of love along the way.

  • Harriet545

     Not so sure Al Gore was wrong, with all the tornados and floods taking place right now.

    • Chris Jeub

      Sure, maybe Al is right. Harold Camping is now claiming there was a “spiritual” rapture, holding onto the ridiculous rather than admit ridiculousness.

      I tend to think Al Gore is of the same camp. I’m not sure he will confess his theories as ridiculous, especially if he’s waiting for tornadoes and floods to stop anytime soon.

      • rca

        I am not a serious debater, just a girl from North AL, raised in a not-perfect Christian home, who still has questions throughout her life…..anyway, just looking in the net and saw this and thought I’d comment.  I’ve never been a good reader or comprehender-I’m working on this-and I may not have read all through this, so please correct anything I say that’s wrong (laziness, sigh :) ), anyway, I think you mentioned doom and gloom thinking from people.  I guess I have questions about the “End Times”–always have since I grew up always hearing about it.  I remember the book about 88 reasons Jesus might come back in 88.  I remember Mike Warnke speaking in our town, going to PTL in NC, and TBN, Benny Hinn, and many others if that gives you any understanding as to what I was exposed to.  There is so much untruth out there.  Anyway, what do you think about the End Times?  Is there any truth to Global Warming at all?  I haven’t studied up on it.  Of course I had always heard about Noah’s flood.  But, it seems I have memories of hearing about God destroying the world by fire????  Is this in I or II Peter??  Seems I heard a 1/3 or 2/3rd ratio growing up, but I don’t think I see that in Scripture, but it seems there is something in Peter.  Then, I re-read in Revelation a while back I think about God, or the Sun, scorching a certain number of mankind????  So what are your thoughts about any of this.  The way I think is that since the Fall, we are in an imperfect world.  I’m not sure when it will all be made right again, or what it will be like.  How is God going to destroy the Earth before He makes a New Heaven and Earth??  Like I said I need to do more reading on my own, and make my own decisions and beliefs, not my parents, or other people or so-called “leaders”, or “men of God”.  I believe God is truth, so what are your thoughts and what do you believe His plans are for this Earth.  Thanks.  R.

        • rca

          I also meant to add, that I have had a *lot* of Fear growing up, but am learning it is all about Love.  God is love, and I guess saves His own???  I guess apart from Him there is Fear???  Still learning.  But, give me your thoughts on anything I mentioned if you have time.  thanks.  R.

          • Chris Jeub

            I think the key term is “fear.” Any persuasion (religious or scientific) that attempts to manipulate followers with fear is something to avoid, or at least seriously doubt.

            Our first book “Love in the House” opens with two chapters on fear. Hate to keep shamelessly plugging our books (heh), but they touch on the very concerns that you have. They go deeper than a blog post can dig.

            • rca

              thanks for the reply

              • rca

                me again, sorry.  you can delete this next comment as it is not related.  I just did not know where to send it to you.  I looked up the Lawless family, as I have before, and just found them bc I had spelled their name incorrectly before.  And, when I did, “lo and behold”, the link I clicked on was to you guys, an article from 2006.  Just thought I’d pass on that I knew them when I was young.  I remember their family being at our house a couple times.  I’m 43, so this was when I was elementary age or so, I think.  I kind of remember their older daughters, and I have a memory of Nina sitting on some steps in our house going upstairs breast-feeding one of her kids–why I remember that, who knows??  :)  And, I think my mom said that she first met them at a church we went to, and that they may not have had a car and he was riding her around on the front of his bicycle handlebars.  I think my mom gave then her bike???  Hope I have not remembered anything incorrectly.  Just with me looking at larger family blogs the last few years–I guess bc of the Duggars, which is how I heard of you guys, I have thought of them.  Big and Small world.  Just thought I’d share that with you.  Anyway, have a great day, and feel free to delete this personal note……Robyn Asquith Umstead on Facebook.  God Bless you all.

  • Ash Barnes

    Global Warming  is a proven fact by many many highly intelligent scientists. You cannot deny facts.
    Al Gore has helped raise awareness of how in jeopardy our environment really is. Kudos to him.

    • Chris Jeub

      “Highly intelligent scientists” have made ridiculous claims for millennium. Following their claims blindly — especially calling their claims “facts” as you are — is dangerous thinking.

      I suppose kudos for Camping for “raising awareness” for Judgment Day? It’s tough for me to come to that point, Ash.

    • Chris Jeub

      A very timely article was posted today…Check it out, Ash:

      • KT

        Timely?  Try irrelevant.  Ash Barnes said Gore is promoting the findings of environmental scientists, not that Gore, himself, is an environmental scientist.  There’s a difference.

  • Harriet

    I’m not sure Mr. Jeub  even understands the facts. He is not a scientist and has no degrees in environmental science.  Al Gore, who at least has studied the subject, at least has more credibility, whether you agree with him or not.

    • Chris Jeub

      Al Gore studies global warming like Harold Camping studies the Bible. He sees what he wants to see and makes ridiculous claims, and his followers throw money at the fictional claims and blindly follow. That’s my point in the post.

      But Camping has a divinity degree. Gore is a politician. So I suppose Camping is more educated on his subject matter than Gore.

      • Free Thinker

         “He sees what he wants to see and makes ridiculous claims, and his followers throw money at the fictional claims and blindly follow.”

        … and he differs from any other religious leader HOW exactly?

        • Chris Jeub

          You mean Al Gore? I suppose Camping never desired to tax others for his delusions. Religious leaders typically don’t, but the likes of Al Gore do.

          You mean Camping? I wouldn’t agree that camping was similar to any other religious leader. Unless  you think religion in general is delusional?

    • Jennifer Mull

      Harriet, I do not understand why you think it matters that a person has a degree in environmental science. Are you trying to use that to “validate” yourself? Are you trying to use that to “invalidate” Mr. Jeub? 

      A degree only means that a person has taken classes and completed coursework that was required. True learning and education comes from the desire within to understand a subject. I would not need a degree to read and understand something that I want to learn about. 

      As it stands, I do have a degree in science…. in nursing… however, my husband has a degree in environmental science… and in architecture…. He had 20 years experience as an architect, but now, he is doing farmwork and working at Menard’s after being laid off due to our current economy. He has no interest whatsoever in understanding global warming and thinks it is a hoax. Does the fact that he has a degree in environmental science make you feel better about his agreement with Mr. Jeub? 

    • Czarette

      I’m not sure I’m following your reasoning here. You say Mr Jeub is not a scientist and has no degree in environmental science. However, neither does Mr. Gore. You say Mr. Gore has  ‘at least studied the subject,’ but so has Mr. Jeub. Get his book, and you will see this is true. If you are basing credibility on ‘being a scientist’ or ‘having degrees in environmental science’ or ‘studying the subject,’ they are equally credible, whether you agree with one or the other.  If you want very clear evidence that Mr. Jeub does understand the facts, read his book.

  • Cbertolini

    Camping is admittedly a whack job. I’m not really a fan of Gore either, but his environmental theories are perfectly sound. Is it really that mind boggling to believe that blasting ridiculous amounts of toxic pollutants into our Earth’s atmosphere prooobably isn’t very good for it (or us for that matter)?

    • Chris Jeub

      This is a strawman, Cbertonlini. I’m not saying pollution isn’t bad, and Al Gore’s environmental policies aren’t so innocent. He lobbied in 2006 for carbon credit legislation or else the world would scorch in 10 years. This is not sound theory…it is political manipulation using fear mongering.

      Actually, I consider Gore harmful, Camping quite harmless. Gore advocates taxation of people who don’t believe in his false prophesies. Camping only took money from his followers. Which is a more dangerous whack job?

      Just asking…

      • Cbertolini

        Well I was more or less just promoting his environmental theories (which really aren’t even his, he’s just parroting off theories other people have suggested). As far as politics go he’s kind of a joke.

        • Chris Jeub

          I’ve done quite a bit of research, and Al Gore is just as much a joke in science. The environmental theories just don’t measure up, though the mainstream just takes it in without questioning it. (Ironic, isn’t it? Science is supposed to question everything.)

          Do a search in the sidebar for “global warming.” I’ve got quite a few posts on environmental science. I usually don’t have too much trouble convincing people. The facts are facts. I welcome feedback.

          And get “Love Another Child.” I wrote the chapter on the environment. That’ll really blow your mind.

          • CBertolini

            Well I’m college educated in the subject, which by no means makes me an expert, but I’m a bit more driven to believe my professor (and the book that he personally wrote based on his first hand studies) than someone who doesn’t dedicate their entire life to the subject. And I’m not trying to belittle your writing or personal studies, but again, my professor has dedicated his life to environmental studies. I don’t see why you can state the absolute facts you believe as “REAL facts” and the facts that the vast majority believes as baseless theories.
             Again, I don’t take any of this without question…that’s why I went to school and studied it. I’m not going to brag about my school or credentials though because I sincerely believe you really won’t care.

            • Chris Jeub

              It’s not that I don’t care about learned titles. They serve a purpose, I suppose, but they don’t do the thinking for you. Is this your answer, Cbertolini? Believe in the people with degrees? Or people who have bigger degrees than you?

              I guess I’m the opposite. When someone starts flashing degrees and “I’m more credited than you” arguments, my poser-radar goes up and I turn more skeptical.

              And I believe that has kept me from falling for a lot of nonsense. Good, healthy skepticism of the elites. I tend to think the world would be a better place if more people shared this view.

  • KT

    Promoting an observable, measurable phenomena, is not analogous to promoting a non-observable, non-measurable, non-phenomena.

    • Chris Jeub

      I assume you mean global warming is observable and measurable? As far as I’m concerned, it’s a hoax, because I’ve observed fraud and deception for years. Read our chapter on the environment (referenced in the post)…you may be convinced. Gore’s so-called science is anything but.

      Unless you cling to non-observable, non-measurable, non-phenomena. Then global warming is believable. As is acid rain, ozone depletion, jungle deforestation, and (how ironic) global cooling. All doom-n-gloom predictions of the past that have not occurred.

      Just like Camping’s predictions.

      • CB

        Wait…are you seriously saying that acid rain, ozone depletion and jungle deforestation aren’t real? All of which have occurred (or are still occurring) and have been quite thoroughly observed…
        I’ll agree and say that perhaps global warming has been a bit blown out of proportion but all the prior examples are extremely real.

        • Chris Jeub

          “Aren’t real” is a little extreme. “Blown out of proportion,” definitely. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and recall the stories of these three certain-doom predictions. They’re just like Gore’s stories, just like Y2K theorists, just like Camping’s.

          Playing on fear, when reality was not nearly as fearful. Don’t fall for it.

          • CB

            I don’t know many who would consider these “certain-doom” theories, lets not be so dramatic. Many people are confronting these issues now so that they don’t some day get to be major problems. There’s nothing wrong with having a a little foresight. I’d rather be a little overly cautious (and no, I’m not fearful of any of this since I thoroughly believe a lot of it can be prevented or reversed) than have my future great grand kids live in  a much worse world than I did.

            • Jennifer Mull

              I think the “certain-doom” aspect comes from the media, moreso than science. Science just uses that publicity to further its own end. There ARE issues regarding our environment, and it was God who gave us “dominion over the earth” and commended us to care for it. Christians aren’t against the environment, nor do they desire a worse world than environmentalists do for our children and grandchildren.

              The problem comes when science tries to make predictions based on “theory” and presents them as “fact.” And, when environmentalists use that to “scare us” into following their agenda, then there is a real problem. Truth is not at the helm, and that means people are allowing fear to drive their decisions.

              I recycle because I am not wasteful. I recycle because so many things can be reused. I recycle because I like to save money. I do not recycle because I am fearful for the future. I know the One who holds the future. So, I don’t feel the need to recycle at all times no matter what… but I also feel no need to judge those who do or don’t recycle. I am free to care for my environment without guilt and fear.

              And…. that is a good thing… for me… and my grandchildren……..

  • Kate

     Every culture has had people who have predicted the end of times or the earth’s doom.  Most today claim because of the amount of Tornadoes, Tsunamis, earthquakes ect. that God is showing the end of times. Many just want followers or people who look up to them and see them as an earthly God.

  • Harriet

    Mr. Jeub has not studied this subject as a scientist. His opinion really is no more credible than any other layman.

    Scientists–who are not politicians–have documented changes in the environment by means too complicated for Mr. Jeub to understand (without further education). Secondly, Mr. Jeub has not traveled to places like the Arctic Circle, so he really can’t say whether changes aren’t occurring. His time has been spent raising 16 kids. That is what he is an expert in. Not environmental science.

    He seems clearly biased in favor of an anti-govenrnment, anti-taxation point of view. With this agenda, it naturally suits his purpose to believe that global warming is a hoax. However, his opinion is not credible since he lacks the education and experience to back it up.

    • Chris Jeub

      Now, Harriet. This is called “ad hominem.” It’s a logical fallacy that is used when there is no other argument left to make. In other words, you are attacking me personally rather than the arguments I am making. Your reply is, well, very weak.

      I think my points are worth considering. I don’t need to get a degree to make good points (just like you don’t), nor do I need to travel to the arctic circle to witness firsthand anything (btw, have you???). Though I’m raising 16 children, my brain still functions and I am able to think through hype and see the truth.

      I encourage you to do the same, Harriet. Think it through. Don’t assume complicated scientists with fancy degrees must just “know.” If they lace their claims with fear-mongering, doubt it. Seriously. What most often follows the fear is manipulation and political tyranny.

      And I’m not okay with that. Only those who surrender their minds to the elites will be. I’m not one of those kind of laymen. And that’s what I’m trying to teach my kids.

      • Harriet

        The truth is not an “attack.” There have been many people throughout history who have complained when confronted by a truth they don’t like. 

        Or are you an environmental scientist? If so, I apologize.

      • Kat

        It sickens me that you speak in such a patronizing, belittling tone to this woman (whom, by the why, I completely agree with.)

        Do you think you’re loving your neighbor? 

    • Czarette

      You say that, ‘He seems clearly biased in favor of an anti-govenrnment[sic], anti-taxation point of view. With this agenda, it naturally suits his purpose to believe that global warming is a hoax. However, his opinion is not credible since he lacks the education and experience to back it up.’You do realize, of course, that it could also easily be said that Al Gore ‘is clearly biased in favor of a big government and high taxation. With this agenda, it naturally suits his purpose to believe that global warming is true. However, his opinion is not credible since he lacks the education and experience to back it up.’You are making the implication that someone without a degree can not have credibility in a subject they have studied extensively. This implication cannot be backed by historical precedent. Often people without degrees in a specific subject have come up with theories that revolutionized that field. 

  • Harriet

    Actually, I have traveled extensively and seen many signs of global warming on several continents. And I’ve read the research. Since I am degreed, I can understand it, too.

    • Chris Jeub

      Wow, Harriet, that’s really interesting. You’re insisting on pulling the “I’m more credible than you” card, so there’s only one thing to do to really put this to rest…

      Please post your credentials here, perhaps a link to your About Us page. I’m sure you have one, being that you’ve traveled and researched so extensively. I’m curious to read about your findings.

      (Come to think of it, I co-authored Blue Book in 2008. The resolution was reforming environmental policy. I guess I am credentialed.)

  • Nima

    Global climate change is a fact.  You can continue to believe the words of a few men (the VAST majority of experts agree that climate change is real) if you want but if you want to see God’s view – look out side/turn on the t.v.  One of the most dramatic effects of climate change is severe weather.  How many tornados/hurricanes/flooding/drought will God have to show you before you wake up? 

    • Chris Jeub

      Nima, calling theories “fact” is scientifically ignorant. This website does a fair job explaining the difference between “fact” and “theory”:

      And you whipped out two egregious logical fallacies: (1) appeal to popularity, (2) causation without correlation

      I don’t believe God is sending natural disasters to wake anyone up. He’s given most of us logical thought and scientific theory to help us decipher fact from fiction.

      Hate to dump all this on you, Nima, but your response is lacking. Don’t resist researching this. Be open to what I came to years ago: global warming is a farce.

    • kate

       Tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding and drought have always existed.  TVs and the internet magnify all these events. Today, if an earthquake strikes a million miles away, we hear about it. This is the only time in history where something can happen halfway across the world and we hear about it.  It only seems like more natural disasters are occurring due to amount of  communication we have in the world.  TV stations make money when a natural disaster happens because more people tune in. So naturally they would try to report on as much bad news and natural disasters as they could.
      I don’t know all the facts on Global warming, but I do know God does not send natural disasters. If he did, why would you give him credit for anything at all.  The God you worship sounds worse than Hitler.

  • Nima

    Chris, in fact I HAVE done the research on this topic.  I could cite all sorts of references but in the interests of brevity I just made a brief comment.  I talk about God because I believe that God did not create us to use the earth but to be wise guardians of the earth.  I do not think either of us will ever agree on these topics.  So let us simply wait and see what happens to the climate.  My prediction based on extensive science is: much more severe weather is on its way.  

    • Chris Jeub

      All right, all right. Truce.

      But bringing this thread all the way back to the article: This way of thinking is not too far off Harold Camping’s. It’s faith-based, not scientific.

      – Really smart computer engineers had it figured out: Jan 1, 2000.
      – Camping had it all figured out: May 28, 2011.
      – Al Gore has it figured out, too: Jan 28, 2016.

      Set the calendar, and let’s connect then. It’ll be here before you know it, and I bet it’ll be quite chilly out.

      • Anonymous

        I was going to keep quite because you are talking about global warming and not Y2K, but you are waaaayyyy off base saying Y2K was a farce.  Y2K was not an issue because many, many, many companies realized the issues along with the DoD and took proactive steps to fix affected hardware.  Had they not taken proactive issues there would of been problems as was proven time and again (you don’t think companies and the DoD spent billions of dollars on a hunch, do you?).  There were small glitches with Y2K but they were just that small and they only affected a small amount of people.  I was directly involved with the DoD effort to minimize Y2K issues so that people like you and our service men and women would not notice any problems. 

        • Chris Jeub

          I recall some pretty kooky predictions from the Y2K crowd (planes falling from the sky, etc.). It was the same catastrophic fear to manipulate behavior. That said, you both have a point, something like this:

          – Computer scientists /= hyped up Y2K enthusiasts
          – Scientists /= Al Gore followers
          – Christians /= Camping followers

          Fair enough.

      • Guest

        H1 B visas were given to a lot of computer people from other countries to fix the Y2k bug. Companies spent millions to avert disaster. If they had sat on their hands, things would have been disastrous.

        You want to make a point, please do not compare Harold Camping to that. He is a self serving person who is a disgrace to christians and christianity. Too bad many of us looked at like freaks and the butt of rapture jokes because of idiots like him.

  • Harriet

    “(Come to think of it, I co-authored Blue Book in 2008. The resolution was reforming environmental policy. I guess I am credentialed.)”

    Chris, you self-published this book. And it’s about debating, not environmental science. I don’t think you have the credentials to post about environmental science. Nor do I–but then again, I’m not doing it. I post about things I know about.

    • Chris Jeub

      Again, attacking my credentials to avoid sharing yours. Ad hominem. Still waiting…

      • Harriet

        Sorry, should we just accept everything you say (“My self-published book makes me an expert . . ..”)?  What’s the name for that debating technique? Lying?

        Still waiting on your credentials. . . .

        • Chris Jeub

          Patience, Harriet. You posted 51 minutes ago. It took you four days to come up with the “I don’t post my credentials on the unsafe Internet” excuse.

          See my post above.

  • Harriet

    Al Gore did not predict that the world was ending in Jan 2016. He was quoting a scientist who said that we’d reach the “tipping point” at that time. That means we’d be past the point where we could correct substantial damage to the internet.

    Are debaters allowed to misrepresent things like that?

    • Chris Jeub

      Attacking the person to avoid the question is called “ad hominem.” It’s nasty. But that’s what you’re doing, Harriet. You were asked to reveal credentials, and you’ve only attacked as a response.

      Come now. Where’s your bio page of all the extensive traveling and first-hand experience of the devastating effects of global warming?

      • Harriet

        I’ll let you go first. What are your credentials (besides the book you self-published about debating)?

        I do not post my travels, or my education, or pictures of my family on the internet. I think it’s unsafe. Furthermore, I have never written a blog post trying to convince others about global warming, because I’m not qualified to do so. I’d be the first to admit that.

        Now, please show us how you are qualified.

        • Chris Jeub

          Me go first? Wait a minute, weren’t you the one making a big deal out of this? Credentials > Thought. I think this is a lousy premise, sacrificing the mind on the alter of elitism, but here goes…

          I’m just a publisher, author, speaker and teacher, Bachelors of Science in English, MBA, debate coach, camp manager, youth director, father of 16, licensed Colorado teacher, homeschool dad, self-employed businessman, project manager, former editor, former public school teacher.

  • Chris Jeub

    As Harriet figures out her credentials, I thought you’d appreciate this article from the New York Post. It is along the same lines as my thinking, just a different issue (overpopulation):


    Ha ha. Harold Camping — what an idiot! He predicted the end of the world on May 21. Last week, the Christian radio station owner said he was kind of right, though no one else noticed, and anyway the judgin’ will continue until (new date!) Oct. 21 of this year, when the world really and truly will be destroyed, probably.

    What you didn’t know is that after his loony prediction, Camping was promoted to full professor at Stanford and rewarded with adoring mainstream press coverage, more than a dozen appearances on “The Tonight Show,” prestigious awards and praise from the Obama administration’s chief science advisor.

    Sorry, I got one detail wrong. It wasn’t Camping who reaped those earthly rewards for his cosmic wackiness. It was Paul Ehrlich.

    Read more:

  • Mshea62

    The difference…there is proof that global warming is occurring. Real, scientific proof. Versus Camping, who is just a raving lunatic who takes advantage of uneducated, religious people by intimidating them and making them afraid of his interpretation. 
    Do you see the difference? Scientific proof v. random calculations and fear mongering? Scientists/educated persons/fact v. Crazy guy who predicted the end of the world 

    Al Gore did not in fact state “The world will end in 2016.”  And he didn’t try to force people into Christianity to avoid “Hell.” 

    • Chris Jeub

      “Real, scientific proof.” I don’t agree. There are anecdotal natural occurrences that allow some to make outlandish claims. Claims based in fear, which is my point. Check out this article from Vancouver and ask yourself, “Who is more goofy? Camping or Gore?” I see little difference…

      “Every Facebook update and LOL cat you post
      contributes to global warming, due to the server industry’s dependence
      on coal-fired electricity.”Read more:

  • Welldontpanic

    prophets* not profits

  • Pingback: Ehrlich, Holdren, and Flawed Thinking()