Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 05/05/07 11:03:22 AM |
Age 52, FL |
Loved your article. And yes, while the rest of us will have to ride bicycles everywhere people like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, etc. will be driving their polluting cars and planes. I don't forsee them downsizing anytime soon. Sounds like there is something in the works to have only a select few enjoying the comforts of their labor while the rest of us live at the poverty level. Which is ok by me. I am perfectly content because God has taught me to be content in whatever state I am in. Poor or rich. God is in control. And I know what the Bible says about the future.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/14/07 10:57:20 AM |
Age 70, CO |
Dennis T. Avery (along with S. Fred Singer) has written a book on the subject of Global Warming (now called Climate Change) entitled Unstoppable Global Warming--Every 1500 Years (Rowman and Littlefieldk, 2006). His argument is that the climate has a cycle which speaks to why there are warmer periods and then cooler periods that have nothing to do with human activity. Avery's gripe with the United Nations IPCC report is they "they're still keeping this climate cycle a virtual secret from the public." Avery notes that the new IPCC report "warns us it can't explain the recent surge of warming from 1976-1998. Therefore it claims the surge must have been caused by human-emitted CO2. But the IPCC also can't explain why more than half of the current warming occurred before 1940 before the Industrial Revolution improved global living standards and increased CO2 emissions." Avery tells us that "the coolings, not the warmings, have been the bad part. After the Medieval Warming ended about 1300, Europe was hit by huge storms, gigantic sea floods, crop failures, and plagues of disease." Those who argue that a global warming may be a good thing for most nations could well win this point. Besides, Americans and Canadians love living in Florida during the winter months. It appears that warmer is better!
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/12/07 01:00:23 AM |
Age 57, ID |
Global warming is a hoax. The left is using weather modifications via HAARP. Through radio waves one can produce high pressure areas to create droughts and flooding. They can direct and redirect the air, both cold and warm from areas ie. ocean currents, to areas they want and thereby create problems. Have you noticed the cold temps in the eastern US? They want the elimination of food production. Ever wonder why the gov't has paid farmers NOT to grow crops? Do your research. Check out a man named Nikola Tesla who discovered the application to electricity and who wanted to give FREE power to everyone on planet earth until the gov't eliminated him and took all his notes. Go to google and plug in: weather modifications + HAARP. Be savvy enough to know what is gov't bologna. That's usually at the beginning. While your at it...plug in: chem trails + poisons and see what they are dropping from the sky. And we all wonder why we are sick!
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 12:04:14 PM |
Age 70, CO |
Noebel's comments regarding DDT and Al Gore need further clarification and the January 2007 issue of Access to Energy summarizes the issue best: "Media hysteria and propaganda promoting 'human-caused global warming' have hit a new high this month, just as the previously most successful campaign of world technological genocide--the demonization of DDT--is passing from the scene. After eradicating malaria from the entire developed world, DDT was banned by the United States, the United Nations, and their retainers. The result has been the deaths of more than 50 million children, mostly African, and chronic ongoing illness from malaria for more than 500 milliion adults--10% of the human race. There was never a shred of credible scientific evidence that DDT was harmful to the environment or to animal or human health. Even the scientific review board of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the agency that initiated the DDT ban, found DDT to be entirely safe and environmentally beneficial. Before the ban, DDT saved hundreds of millions of human lives, and its originator received a well-deserved Nobel Prize. Based on Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, a book that was demonstrably false from cover to cover, and promoted by self-interested ideologues, including Al Gore, the anti-DDT pogrom reached an intensity comparable to the current campaign against energy. Use of DDT against malaria is now being advocated by the US and the UN. The reason is that malaria has been killing mostly black children, and black political power has finally reached a point where this can no longer be overlooked."
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 01:21:02 PM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
I noticed that the "Access to Energy" article -- alleging that the "DDT ban" has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions -- contains no citations at all to anything which in any way supports such a claim.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 10:26:45 PM | | Age 41, SD |
DDT Ban Causes 'Holocaust'
Worldwide, malaria infects more than 500 million people annually, and kills at least 1 million. Most of the victims--375 million--are women and children.
"That's more victims than there are people in the United States and Canada combined," said Roy Innis, national chairman of the U.S.-based Congress of Racial Equality.
"We [have] emphasized fears about speculative risks from trace amounts of insecticides and ignored the real, immediate, life-or-death risks that those insecticides could prevent," said Innis. "The result has been another holocaust of African mothers, fathers, and children every few years, a death toll since the 1972 DDT ban that surpasses World War II's--over 50 million people. It is a travesty worse than colonialism ever was, a human rights violation of monstrous proportions."
"The result of the DDT ban has been an unspeakable death toll," observed film producer and preventive medicine doctor D. Rutledge Taylor in the March 20 issue of American Daily. "It is about the greatest human death toll in the known history of man, far greater than the holocaust and all the wars combined. It is time that we as generations of humans wake up and do what is right for humanity."
"We have to kill malaria using DDT, and the matter has been settled that DDT is not harmful to humans and if used for indoor-insecticide spraying," Uganda Health Minister Jim Muhwezi told the East African on April 4. "It's the most effective and cheapest way to fight malaria."
Written By: Paul Driessen
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: May 1, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Paul Driessen (pdriessen@eco-imperialism.com) is a senior fellow at the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power; Black Death.
More information on the impact of malaria on Uganda is available from the Web site of the country's ministry of health, at http://www.health.go.ug/malaria.htm.
Additional information is also available from the Web sites of the African American Environmentalist Association, http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm, and Africa Fighting Malaria, http://www.fightingmalaria.org/.
If you took time to do your own re-search, you will see for yourself the correlation between ban on DDT and the astronomical increase of malaria death. The numbers are declining since its starting up use again
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/11/07 01:39:15 PM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
The first website you refer us to (http://www.health.go.ug/malaria.htm) says nothing at all about DDT; it only describes the deadly nature of malaria. The second website (http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm) makes no claim about a "DDT ban" being responsible for 50 million deaths. Indeed, according to that website, there IS NO SUCH BAN in the nations most affected. The authors say that "Tradtional environmental groups are CALLING FOR a global ban on DDT production and use" [my emphasis]. The third website you offer confims that DDT "WAS, and IS, used in malaria control" [my emphasis]. How can a ban which is still in the discussion stage be retroactively responsible for tens of millions of deaths?
Moreover, where did the figure of 50 million come from? So far as I can tell from the aaenvironment page, the number roughly represents the *total* deaths, from malaria, *worldwide* since the time that *the United States* banned DDT within *its own* borders. Some people are apparently claiming, therefore, that every death from malaria since 1972 is a result of the 1972 U.S. ban, which is obviously absurd. Even if there *were* a worldwide ban, it would be ridiculous to assume that every death from malaria could be attributed to it: unless it could be proved that DDT use was capable of preventing *every* case of malaria!
So far, then, there is no case at all for speaking of Al Gore or anybody else as participating in a "campaign of world technological genocide." Should such horrific accusations not be made with more care, more evidence, more application of common sense?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/12/07 04:23:26 PM | | Age 41, SD |
"DDT was banned in 1972 by the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator William (Bill) Ruckelshaus. In South Africa, the most developed nation on the continent, the incidence of malaria had been kept very low (below 10,000 cases annually) by the careful use of DDT. But in 1996 environmentalist pressure convinced program directors to cease using DDT. One of the worst epidemics in the country's history ensued, with almost 62,000 cases in 2000. Shortly after this peak, South Africa reintroduced DDT. In one year, malaria cases plummented by 80 percent. Next door, in Mozambique, which doesn't use DDT, malaria rates remain stratospheric. Similar experiences have been recorded in Zambia and other African countries."
The article I pasted before yours was from a reputable source, News Week. South Africa followed US by not using it due to pressure, but allows it again since there was a direct correlation between no use and malaria increase. Even though there is not a word "ban" with other countries, they were pressured not to use it.
This is not rocket science. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can get the connection.
By the way, this example in this week's article was used to show how ludicrous it is for people to swallow global warming just on pseudo science (as in DDT being BAAAD in US and diminished use in countries that needed it most) and power hungry polititians. We can go around in circles using other people's research with different opinions. Sure the numbers might not be accurate and skewed, but there is an obvious correlation. But no matter what, people are going to believe what they want to believe, even when the truth is right in front of their faces.
I don't support the notion of Al Gore apologizing since he wasn't the loan ranger, but he was a part of the problem. Sometimes people who think they are so important (when they are not experts in the area they are tampering with), stick their noses in situations where they should not be and cause needless problems. He and other polititians, Republican or Democrats are both guilty.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/12/07 09:14:45 PM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
This was the the original claim:
"DDT Ban Causes 'Holocaust' Worldwide"
"more victims than there are people in the United States and Canada combined"
"another holocaust of African mothers, fathers, and children every few years, a death toll since the 1972 DDT ban that surpasses World War II's--over 50 million people."
"It is about the greatest human death toll in the known history of man, far greater than the holocaust and all the wars combined."
And what is the substantiation for that? A report that unnamed environmentalists used unspecified pressure tactics to get one African government to enact a one-year DDT ban; and that said government immediately reversed the ban (without apparently suffering any sanctions or retaliation for doing so) when 50,000 (not million) additional malaria cases (not deaths) appeared to result.
Do you really consider that the information you have provided supports the claims you made?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/13/07 05:12:09 PM | | Age 41, SD |
Not the article's numbers, but the other research which shows CLEARLY the correlation between no DDT use and malaria deaths. The quote before your response is from the aaenvironment.com So if you choose to ignore these findings, thats your choice.
I merely pointed out to you these reports-not to support fully the claims of this column, but to show there are statistics proving the skyrocketing malaria when DDT was not in use. Besides, the main reason for the article was not DDT. It was just an example of polititians and pseudo scientists taking advantage of unscientifically proven events for their own leg-up. At any rate, we are just going in circles.
Have a great life, and remember that there will be an immediate global warming, when the earth is destroyed by fire to make way for the new heaven and earth in which Jesus Christ will rule supremely.
I have no idea what you believe along these lines, but God's Word says that in the end, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/13/07 09:28:19 PM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
A claim is not "research." A number on a webpage is not a "finding." I could undoubtedly point to webpages where it was "found" that millions of women were burned as witches under "Christian" rule. I would not accept such numbers either, unless the claimants were able to show how they were derived.
Have a great life yourself!
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/14/07 07:57:17 AM | | Age 41, SD |
Hows this for a finding (not a claim) of course you will probably not believe this finding either.
"Bhutan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and India have seen large increases in malaria cases after the ban (Roberts, 2004)(Africa fighting malaria FAQ, 2005). In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka resulting in 80,000 deaths. After an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT there were only 17 cases reported in 1963 and the program was halted."
Read more "findings" in onpedia
I noticed that those who are opposed to the gospel always bring up autrocities done in the name of "Christianity." These autrocities are clearly not acceptable to the Lord, and they will each answer to Him on judgement day.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/14/07 08:57:36 PM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
The problem with your argument is that the genuine scientific research you do cite provides essentially zero support for the wild, inflammatory claims you are passing on. When I point this out, you become frustrated at my refusal to "believe" in what scientific research shows. The reference you just offered is a case in point. Dr. Roberts cites a study showing that "After DDT was introduced in 1946 [in Sri Lanka] malaria deaths declined greatly and the reduction was greatest where DDT usage was highest." I have no difficulty accepting this. I have great difficulty understanding how in the world it shows that millions are dying today because DDT has been banned, since neither Dr. Roberts nor any other reputable source to whom you have referred me even claims -- let alone proves -- 1) that there have been that many malaria fatalities or 2) that the DDT use which could have prevented them has been banned. Your own source, Dr. Roberts, says explicitly that 2) is false: that 'The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants specifically allows continued public health use of DDT." So what exactly is your claim, and what is the evidence that actually supports it?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/15/07 09:42:47 PM | | Age 41, SD |
Now I understand your confusion. I have better faith in these authors in that they would just spout off a number, but Mr. Noeble should have footnoted where this number of 50 million came from to do away with any confusion. I found that number, but the article would not let me copy paste, so here it is. go to aaenvironment.com/DDT again, click on the link of Paul Driessen, taking you to eco-imperialism, click contents and exerpts, and the link Sustainable mosquitoes and expendable people. These numbers are from World Health Organization and other studies, and you will find these numbers here. Too bad it took such a round about way to get the numbers this author was using. Anyway, I have not been frustrated, but a little amused. I would not go around making wild claims. I also believe in proof, so that is why I have been going to great lengths to find it. By the way, none of the articles I referred you to said 50 millions today. They have all been in the past. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/17/07 04:07:32 AM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
Mr. Driessen says "Since 1972, over 50 million people have died from this dreaded disease." This figure is presumably from the World Health Organization, and I'm not disputing it. I'm disputing the "translation" provided by Roy Innis and Rutledge Taylor, whom you quote claiming these deaths, or a large portion of them, were the result of the DDT ban. To repeat once more: even your own sources, like Dr. Roberts, explicitly declare that *there is no such ban* on a global level. (The U.S. ban instituted in 1972 is completely irrelevant to the claims of Innis and Taylor; that ban applies only to the U.S., not to Africa or Asia, and people are not dying of malaria in massive numbers in the U.S.). Mr. Driessen claims that DDT prohibitions have been expanded and enforced by NGO pressure, coercive treaties, and threats of economic sanctions by foundations, nations and international aid agencies, but I see no specifics about the nature of these pressures, treaties or threats. What powers do the WWF or Greenpeace or the Pesticide Action Network (the NGOs named by Driessen) have to force governments to aquiesce in the deaths of their own citizens? Which nations or aid agencies have threatened sanctions? Again, Driessen himself says that South Africa returned to the use of DDT after malaria cases increased, and he points to no sanctions which were imposed or even threatened; again, Dr. Roberts says that The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS continued public health use of DDT. So who, exactly, are we supposed to hold responsible for this "holocaust"?
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/19/07 10:24:59 AM | | Age 41, SD |
The research I choose to believe are the majority of ones that have the same findings and which mostly supports the cause and effect of no use of DDT and 50 million deaths. The research that supports the undisputable correlation is the one I choose to put stalk in. That is only pure common sense. Al Gore and others involved in these environmental groups with their pseudo "scientific" reserach who pretend to be experts when they are not, are the ones who are to blame for the ban in US and pressure, and making it difficult for these poor countries to access DDT, thus resulting in higher malaria deaths. Not everyone can be researchers, and I know there is biased and unbiased, so that is why I look at the majority of the findings and look to where it points to.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/25/07 03:13:17 AM | | Age 51, THAILAND |
"Al Gore and others involved in these environmental groups... are the ones who are to blame for the ban in US and pressure, and making it difficult for these poor countries to access DDT."
What pressure are you referring to? U.S. threats to withdraw support for World Bank loans? Calls from Greenpeace to boycott products made in Namibia? The articles you cite give no specifics.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 11:36:46 AM |
Age 56, CA |
I agree with this article. Not that we should go around polluting the world. But the antropogenic causes and cures to Global Warming, if they exist, are insignificant. Global Warming is an act of nature. Trying to do anything about it is like trying to stop Spring, Summer, Winter or Autumn. Historical evidence shows it to actually be beneficial. Please see the Great Global Warming Swindle video on YouTube while you still can. Lead writers of the IPCC report disagree with the final report. ABC TV meteorologist James Spann disagrees with antropogenic Global Warming. It's all political propaganda and who's paying the bill? Us. Who really benifits? Those who want to control us.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 09:22:07 AM |
Age 53, TX |
Thank you for your article. Scientific "consesnsus" does not equate to scientific evidence. Global warming "alamists" don't want to objectively evaluate the scientific evidence because it does not support their views. The global warming movement is political, it's a religion, and it has a dangerous agenda. Yes, God has given us humans the job of being good stewards of the planet He has provided for us. But how arrogant of anyone to think WE have the power to destroy it. I believe my God is in control of His creation and will be in charge of its ultimate destruction (see the book of Revelation). And the ULTIMATE of stupidity is to think one can "buy" carbon units to offset one's personal useage. It's just a way for Hollywood celebrities to assuage their guilt over extravagant lifestyles that use a lot more energy and expel "more" carbon and, hopefully, enhance their public image. It has become a joke at our house.. "Oh, you'd better turn off that light or we'll have to send money to Madagaskar!!!" REALLY!!
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 09:07:25 AM |
Age 85, NC |
You are right on the truth, Dr. Noebel. Your scientific analysis is in full agreement with several others that I habe read, including the intellectual giant, Dr. Thomas Sowell. He has said recently that less than 2% of carbon-dioxide emmissions are due to humans. There are many skeptics (liberals) who seem insistent on beliving otherwise, but I can assure them that GOD is in charge of the destiny of the Earth, Universe, and Mankind, and NOTHING that man can say or do will influence HIM in the slightest. So, please stick to your position with all assurrance that you will be speaking for many of us who have learned to recognize 'blind-faith' and apostasy wherever it rears it's head. The two youngsters which proceeded me are to be pitied for their ignorance.
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/09/07 11:40:36 PM |
Age 21, IA |
actually, the IPCC report talked about the solar explanation. Most studies show that the sun's output has not increased in the past 30 years, and even the strongest evidence that it has (which would explain the warming on mars etc.) still indicates that at the most extreme estimates of impact (which there is little actual evidence for, although the possibility is open) account for only about 30% of the problem. (10% is the minimum estimation) http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html
So yes, the sun is more of a factor then we thought, but that doesn't excuse the 70-90% of the problem caused by humans
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 11:10:06 AM | | Age 41, SD |
What do you think of not using Satellite findings in their studies, or are you one of the biased data seekers? What about the 100 scientists who were not asked if they agreed with the non-scientists final analysis of the report?
Just wondering
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 10:41:45 AM | | Age 70, CO |
On April 8, 2007 the Charlotte Observer reported, "A historic cold weather outbreak shattered records this morning in Charlotte and elsewhere in the Carolinas, producing bone-chilling conditions for Easter sunrise services." Also on April 8th the Anchorage, Alaska Daily News reported, "An extre-cold winter on the Alaska Peninsula has frozen sea otters out of the bay and pushed them onto the tundra near Port Heiden where they're easy prey for wolves, humans and hunger." And back on March 12th the Associated Press reported, "A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite...The explorers (Bancroft and Arnesen) had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone since they were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted." Instead the two explorers found temps at 100 below zero and had to call off their adventure proving global warming. One observer said, "there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures...they were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming, but one of the things we see with global warming is unpkredictability." Yes, no matter what the situation entails, global warming fits the bill. If it is hot outside it is global warming; if it is cold outside it is global warming. This is not science! this is science fiction and if America is too dumb to figure it out so be it. Other nations have fallen into the dust bin of history for being stupid, too.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/11/07 12:40:19 PM | | Age 36, CA |
Why do folks use such bitter language? Stupid? I think an ignorant thing to do is parade assumptions and call others stupid. I am not advocating global warming here; what I am doing is making a clarification. One of the effects of alleged global warming is freezing temps in the poles. GW does not mean the whole planet will warm up; it means the poles can get colder as the equator warms up; it means, as someone pointed out elsewhere: the weather will be unpredicatable.
I am open to hearing scientific information from both "sides". I am weary of uneducated people calling others stupid. I am weary of the very un-Christ-like tone I hear time and again in these articles and responses.
And one more thing: Yes, God is in charge. I don't think any Bible believing Christian would deny that. One could also say, he is in charge of each human as He is in charge of the planet. That does not mean his children do not indulge in practices that utterly destroy their bodies. There are consequences to sin. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; our over-consumption in-as-much as it draws our attention away from God, or makes us less reliant on Him is not Christian. Sure God has control of the planet, that doesn't mean He's not going to let us suffer consequences for our choices.
Sorry I digressed from the article.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/09/07 06:03:07 PM |
Age 20, MN |
Look, you can go ahead and pit the envrionmentalists against capitalism all you want, but the simple fact is that the more environmentally solution in most industries is always more costly. Capitalism and its child, the free market, does not factor in environmentl impact, social impact, cultural impact, or political impact because at the end of the day, all it does is kick out a dollar amount, and the free market favors the amount that is cheapest. End of story. Without anything to check for all other sorts of societal and environmental impact, these issues will never be addressed, and government-free economics will not be able to handle these issues. I am not a believer of global warming, and i dont trust most scientists, but i think that we still must take care of this planet!!!! You talk about having money as being so important, when i think stewardship of resources is more important, and that includes both money and the environment around us. Call me a hippie if you want, but i would be a little more hesitant to abuse the earth that God is given us. I mean, it is one of the major ways that God reveals Himself....through nature and the environment. I wouldnt stifle that if i were you. -Dan Smith
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: The Politics of Global Warming
| Posted On: 04/10/07 11:04:04 AM | | Age 41, SD |
Now, Now, calm down.
I also am an environmentalist, in that I try my part to protect the environment; not to burn things that emit toxins, throw my trash away, and re-cycle whenever I can, and factories have an obligation to not pollute with their productions.
That was not what this article is about. (whether it is ok to plute or not) It's about polititians exploiting the global warming fear of people and using it for their political advantage, to make laws for their power hungry agendas. All polititians do it, whether Republican or Democrat. Clinton, and Bush have been equally guilty. The article's point was to point out the fact that the polititians who believe in Global Warming are using biased data, and leaving out the most trusted- Satellites! If people would read and believe Scripture, the Lord says that as long as earth remains, there will be seasons, summer, winter, fall. So I don't care what Global Warming people say, God has the final word. By the way, there will be global warming, but not slowly over the centuries. It will happen swiftly when the earth will be destroyed by fire, making way for the new heaven and new earth in which Jesus will rule supremely forever! Yeah!
Click here to reply to this post
- Gerbil Worming.. mostly over-hype
| Posted On: 04/11/07 09:51:53 PM | | Age 56, OR |
I agree with your balanced attitude. Unfortunately, the Humanist Adgenda calls for 'emergencies' to keep the populance guessing, thereby allowing more foolish and sweeping laws to be passed. We all 'need' protecting and the earth's governments, generally, have gone Nanny-Mad. Indeed, we are treated to such a fest of media wash that it is very difficult to find the real truth of any of this.The Lord God truly IS in charge of it all, and my Bible tells me that it will get VERY hot one day, perhaps after it has gotten EXTREMELY cold, since the sun and the moon will be darkened. It is very interesting how the Liberal Colleges have turned out youngsters that are all to ready to bite the economic hand that has fed them for so long with their Marxist tripe. I doubt many have read Marx's "10 ways to destroy capitalism", or know that he was vehemently against Christianity. See how many billions suffered through all that Humanist garbage. If you do not study history, you will surely repeat it. If you do not study your Bible you will be an intelligent fool at best! PGW
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Gerbil Worming.. mostly over-hype
| Posted On: 04/13/07 08:26:15 AM | | Age 12, SINGAPORE |
Amen. No use quarrelling over it. Not like we can stop it. Just hold tight your faith.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Gerbil Worming.. mostly over-hype
| Posted On: 04/13/07 05:14:02 PM | | Age 41, SD |
I am impressed with your faith! Keep believing and trusting. Your faith will be tried many times in this life. Just remember that nothing can separate you from the love of God.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
