by Bill Seng Take offence if you will, when people claim that God is cruel for causing natural disasters to take place in certain areas of the world as a form of divine judgment. I remember when Hurricane Katrina took place in New Orleans. Many in the fundamentalist-evangelical community (I’m referring to folks like Pat Robertson) were likening New Orleans to Sodom and Gomorrah, pointing out its lavish Mardi Gras celebrations, gay pride, and acceptance of voodoo as a legitimate religion. The conclusion was that they deserved it and God used Katrina as a form of judgment. Whether this was true or not, people were offended at the idea that God judged New Orleans with a hurricane. What I find ironic is that the humanistic environmental movement is trying to shift the blame and the guilt away from God and onto the shoulders of humankind. It used to be widely accepted that God was responsible for the weather: rain, sunshine, catastrophes, and wonders. Now the “consensus” is that humans are responsible for tomorrow’s forecast. Yup, that’s right! No need to factor in the variables of natural cycles, geography, or cosmic factors. You can know and determine the forecast of tomorrow simply by being aware of what you do on a daily basis. To be clear, I am referring to the idea of global warming, global climate change, global climate disruption, or whatever name must be given to it tomorrow because of its general failure as a viable scientific theory. Let me backtrack a little on what I have said. “Global warming” was occurring until approximately 15 or so years ago but has been absent ever since. The man-made aspect, as a theory, has fallen flat on its face as populations continue to increase, corporations continue drilling for oil, and carbon emissions continue to be released into the atmosphere. If you are going to check out any additional links, check out this one! http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/128985-33-stories/ Because of the lack of warming, the label has evolved into “change.” Because of the lack of change, it has evolved into “disruption.” What does disruption mean? Answer: Man-made natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. It is impossible to deny that these disasters occur, but should we attribute their occurrences to the negligence of mankind toward nature? If so, can it truly be proven that mankind is responsible? So long as hurricanes and such continue to happen, I think that certain opportunists don’t care. Why is it called “climate disruption?”: http://www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/global-warming-global-climate-disruption Now I conceded that warming had occurred over a decade ago. Why then do I deny global warming as a reality? First, because global warming normally refers to man-made global warming. That is not to say that I believe that human activity does not affect climates at all, but that the effects of human activity are greatly exaggerated. Take, for instance, Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. His predictions in 2006 don’t even come close to the reality in 2014. His estimates would have put entire coastal cities underwater at catastrophic depths. The Final Countdown: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algore_we_have_ten_years_left_before_earth_cooks I don’t know all of the details, but have heard from several credible sources that are critical of global warming that concede carbon emissions play some sort of a role in warming, but it is so tiny that it is almost unnoticeable. There is significantly more information that proves man-made warming is not a threat, but let me use this to transition into my next point. Secondly, past warming trends correlated almost perfectly with increased solar activity. Once the solar activity returned to what we perceive as normal, warming stopped. Coincidence? Michael Oard (2 parts of one of his lectures. He addresses the sun’s effect on climate in part 2):
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BttFVgMLkac
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv1MOPlO26U Warning: THESE SCIENTISTS DO NOT EXIST (Actually they do, but you didn’t hear it from me):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/global-warming I understand that supposedly (and I don’t use that word loosely) the majority of the scientific community believes in global warming. The reason I emphasize supposedly is because this word and the statistics behind the majority claim require a lot of unpacking. I’m not going to do that right now. Instead of doing so, I will give you my conclusion as a result of the proverbial unpacking. If you accept global warming/change/disruption at this stage in history, you are denying reality. Frozen Great Lakes: http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/05/07/summer-2014-cool-season-for-central-eastern-canada-dry-in-west/
Ship searching for melting ice trapped in ice: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/08/22222323-trapped-research-ship-rescue-vessel-break-free-of-antarctic-ice?lite The perfect example regarding such denial is none other than the Reverend Al Sharpton. During his show on CNN, he mocked global warming skeptics as being right-wing looneys who deny global warming just because it is cold during the winter. Tell me, Mr. Sharpton, or anybody else who is critical of the so-called global warming deniers, if a cold winter is not evidence that global warming is not happening what is? I thought global warming meant warmer climates, and global climate change means that the trend of climate has totally shifted. A cold winter is normal… that is our point. So is a warm spring and summer. It is not difficult to figure out. To the global warming advocates, if it’s too hot, its global warming. If it’s too cold, its global climate change. Mind you, Sharpton mocks global warming deniers while playing footage of America being leveled by snow! How do you reason with such a mind? Check out Sharpton’s rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hp6bO0IzQ
An interesting article regarding this past winter: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/report-global-warming-earth-cold/2014/05/08/id/570380/ The scientific community, to me, is like the Roman Catholic Church in the days of Martin Luther (no offence to my Catholic friends). For such and such a fee, we can absolve you of such and such a sin. Can anyone say “carbon tax”? Standing against such lies results in ridicule and in some cases punishment. Indoctrination is a dangerous, dangerous tool in the hands of the corrupt. Humanism has adopted environmental causes to forward tis agenda and religion. But instead of blaming the world’s injustice on a God they don’t believe in, they blame you and me. And they will ridicule us until we finally conform to their will. So the question is no longer “How can a loving God be so cruel?” It has now become, “How can you be so thoughtless when you can clearly see that you are causing droughts, famines, hurricanes, and other natural disasters throughout the world? How dare you drive that SUV!” Of course, this question/accusation is not genuine. It is meant to manipulate the masses. That is why verifiable scientific data is never presented. The loyal global warming supporters always fall back on the fact that 95%+ of their faithful priests (that we call scientists) believe in global warming and that’s good enough for them. In some form or another, God is in control of the weather and the climate. Does he use it for divine judgment? Sometimes “yes,” sometimes “no.” But I am to be the judge of neither circumstance. All I have to say is that next time you hear about a hurricane, tornado, or any other form of natural disaster, don’t look at me. I didn’t do it.
4 comments:
The arrogance of man is believing that he is in control of nature and not the other way around. -Dr. Serizawa "Godzilla"
...just had to add this.
//Can anyone say “carbon tax”? //
Let's say, hypothetically, that the information about AGW were convincing to you. Pretend you accepted some data that showed that if we didn't cut back our carbon emissions by 50% within 10 years, there would be catastrophic problems starting 50 years from now.
What would your solution be?
My solution to your question is that I reject your premise, because I simply don't accept those claims.
I am not for pollution, however, I am against environmental alarmism.
All of the so called data hasn't panned out all that well for the alarmists so far, so if there is a claim that there is going to be some sort of catastrophe in 50 years, 1) I would look to see who is making that claim. If it is one of the liars from the past or someone affiliated with them, I would invite you to join me in a jolly laugh and then prepare to be frustrated with alarmists who are trying to convince me that I am a "denier." 2) I would analyze the data itself. Yes, this would be step number 2, not 1. Because if the people who are suggesting it aren't credible, why waste my time? 3) I would give it a couple of years to see if the data is trending towards these catastrophic outcomes. 4) I would look at my own life and others to see if we really are being harmed by the effects of "global climate change." I have read sources that suggest that global warming, for instance, will yield more positive outcomes than negative. After all, more people die from freezing to death than from warm temperatures. 5) If everything was pointing toward catastrophe, I imagine that even major corporations would clean up their acts accordingly. After all, making an enormous profit doesn't mean anything if you are dead.
Ultimately, no matter what, I would not be an alarmist because it would just make me and the people around me miserable and irritated. When the powers that be promote panic, corruption is always in our midst.
By the way...if you read my post closely you will see that this is exactly the process that I go through. Rarely ever do I make it past step number 1 and only once have I made it to step number four. Back then I thought that the alarmists were credible sources of information.
The carbon tax is not meant to solve a problem. It is only supposed to cash in on hysteria. I especially believe this because those who preach the carbon tax have a much larger carbon foot print than your average joe.
// Because of the lack of warming, the label has evolved into “change.” Because of the lack of change, it has evolved into “disruption.” //
Here are some results for searching for "climate change" vs "global warming" vs "climate disruption" on Google Scholar:
2013: 87,800____36,100___316
2000: 21,600____9,750____18
1990: 3,600_____2,310_____7
1980: 651______ 143_______0
Here's a chart of some of the terms used in all American English books that have been searched by Google. If you also include British English, then "climate change" becomes increasingly popular compared to "global warming". The book search only allows searching up to the year 2008.
Post a Comment