Genesis 8:22 “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”
‘Climate change alarmists – those who unquestioningly accept the pseudo-science that suggests human beings are causing a disaster by releasing too much carbon dioxide – have an influence beyond their community, even causing comments in otherwise sound scientific research. And remember, the term they prefer these days is climate change rather than global warming, as the former phrase gets them off the hook if temperatures are seen to decrease.
A recent piece of excellent research from Columbia University looked at the existence of megadroughts in the southwest of the United States over 2,000 years, which suddenly ceased about the year 1600. Such droughts might last a couple of years each. The negative effect on the research is that the authors felt obliged to comment that megadroughts could return to the area because of climate change, by which they meant anthropogenic global warming. The positive side of the research is that, probably for the first time, modern climate scientists are looking at reasons and effects of what is known as the Medieval Warm Period, which would have been at its peak from about 950 AD through 1250 AD. In much recent climate change research, this period was ignored; especially, the MWP did not appear on the infamous “hockey-stick” graph of alleged global warming. It is good to see the MWP acknowledged, as its cause could have had nothing to do with modern industrial issues. Climates constantly change, but God’s hand on climate conditions never ceases.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/climate-change-and-megadroughts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=climate-change-and-megadroughts&mc_cid=3fae890d30&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
When Christians speak of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ they are scoffed at. But when the climate scammers speak that’s lauded as the ‘Biblical’ truth! So, ‘Would you like to know exactly how long we have left to save the earth? If you’re in New York City and happen to be in Union Square, all you have to do is look up at the gigantic “Climate Clock” that’s been installed to commemorate Climate Week.
Seven years and 102 days. That’s exactly how long we have. Not approximately. Not a rough guess. Not even wishful thinking. The clock purports to tell us the number of years, days, hours, and seconds we have left before the Sword of Damocles descends on Mother Earth and snuffs out the human race in a puff of smoke.
What passes for thinking among climate hysterics goes something like this: We only have seven years and change to take action to avoid catastrophic climate change. The clock is based on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report telling us we have to keep our CO2 footprint under a certain level or we’re all doomed.
The report states that starting from 2018, a carbon dioxide budget of 420 Gt of CO2 gives us a 67% chance to stay under 1.5°C of warming.” The countdown shows, at current rates of emission, how long it will take to burn through the earth’s “carbon budget” or the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the atmosphere while keeping global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. “This is our deadline, the time we have left to take decisive action to keep warming under the 1.5°C threshold” the founders of Climate Clock state.
I’m sure the scientists making that prediction can trot out their calculations and graphs, and present learned papers on how they arrived at their conclusions.
I’m also sure they’re full of it.
If the earth’s atmosphere was a chart or a graph, they’d have it down cold. Unfortunately for their “predictions,” the atmosphere is slightly more dynamic than a piece of paper. It’s a living, breathing, churning, roiling thing affected by thousands of factors that no supercomputer or scientific genius could possibly account for.
To have the unmitigated arrogance to pretend to know how long we have left — or that such a thing can even be measured — is breathtaking.
Other interim predictions on warming have been nowhere near accurate, although they are accurate enough for models. Unfortunately, the world economy is not a model. And to propose siphoning $30 trillion in the next 20 years out of the economies of the West to deal with the problem of climate change doesn’t track. There must be some other reason to impoverish Western industrialized democracies. Could it be — dare I say — political?
Politicizing science is not new, and despite what they want you to think, scientists are not above serving a political agenda. But the absurdity of “predicting” anything so complex, so fraught with uncertainty and based almost exclusively on predictive modeling, makes their playing at politics dangerous to life and liberty.
What’s more, this isn’t the only Climate Clock that could be built.
Another slightly less aggressive benchmark from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 — nine years away — to give the Earth a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.
This is the benchmark famously invoked by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 when she said “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change” — a quote which right-wing politicians and media pounced on.
‘A church elder was shot as his daughters were kidnapped in northwest Nigeria on Friday (Sept. 18), days after a pastor and three other Christians in a north-central state were killed earlier this month.
Morning Star News reports that Hassana and Hussaina Garba, teenaged Christian twin sisters, were kidnapped from their home beside their Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA) worship building in Kwakware village, Kankara County in northwest Nigeria’s Katsina state, sources said. The kidnappers shot their father, ECWA elder Ibrahim Garba, in the stomach in the 10:30 p.m. assault, and sources said he was receiving hospital treatment.
Kidnappings by various criminal elements have become rampant in Katsina state the past few years, with the high number committed by predominantly Muslim Fulanis prompting Gov. Aminu Masari to warn last year that the tribe risks being targeted by vigilantes.
Kwakware area resident Charles Yahaya said kidnapping has long been a problem in Katsina state but has intensified.
“Testimonies and exhibits at the crime scene show that the kidnappers were very organized, very informed on their target and heavily armed,” Yahaya told Morning Star News by text message. “This is one incident among many. It is the sustained and targeted kidnapping of Christian girls in northern Nigeria, after which they are forcefully converted to Islam and married off, thereby becoming sex slaves. Something is going on in our country that needs to be addressed systematically and collectively by all well-meaning citizens.”
‘People should be wary of politicians justifying their actions in terms of “following the experts.” Victorians are learning that lesson in the most brutal way possible.
Everything the Victorian government has done has been rationalised as following “science and data and doctors” (yes, that’s a direct quote). It’s clear many Victorians, at least initially, took that assertion on face value. But Daniel Andrews’ relentless referral to “the advice of experts” is cynical market-researched banality.
Firstly, it implies all experts believe the same thing. That there is one approach put forward by the experts and the government is following it. But academics and experts in all fields rightly spend their careers arguing with each other. The absence of consensus was made clear a couple of weeks ago when all manner of experts lined up to criticise the Andrews government’s “roadmap.”
There’s clearly no expert consensus to the COVID-19 pandemic and there never was. The fact that different jurisdictions in Australia and around the world took different approaches should’ve put paid to the consensus fairy tale months ago. Indeed far from being an exemplar of the expert consensus, in instituting the longest lockdown in the developed world, Victoria is an outlier.
When Andrews, or any other politician, says they are following the advice of experts, they mean they are following the advice of the experts that endorse their particular policy prescriptions.
Secondly, believe it or not, politicians bend the truth. Justifying policy as following expert advice is a sublime political tool, particularly during a pandemic when people are frightened. Victoria’s grotesque curfew is a prime example. Like everything else, it was justified by the Premier as following the advice of experts. Earlier this month he was shamefully forced to admit “that’s a decision I’ve made” after the Chief Health Officer and police commissioner said it had nothing to do with them.
Thirdly, many people don’t realise experts frequently get things wrong. In 1968 one of the world’s most prominent biologists Robert Ehrlich wrongly predicted the ‘population bomb’ would lead to 65 million Americans starving to death in the 1980s. The American Psychiatric Association considered being gay a mental disorder until the 1970s.
These positions seem ridiculous now, but they were once cutting–edge expert advice. It is sensible to assume that some of the positions modern society holds as indisputable fact will in the not-too-distant future be considered equally ridiculous.
Closer to home, modelling from the federal Department of Health from April reported that with isolation, quarantine, and social isolation, the number of Australians requiring intensive care while infected with coronavirus would peak at around 5,000. Fortunately, it peaked at around 100.
And of course, we were told masks weren’t necessary — until suddenly they were.
This isn’t because experts are stupid or lying. The fact is, it’s really, really difficult to predict the outcome of unbelievably complicated public policy issues. Which is all the more reason to not treat expert advice as gospel.
Finally, and most importantly, the notion that we could chart our way through this via the advice of experts alone was always simply the abrogation of moral responsibility on behalf of our political leaders. The COVID-19 pandemic has required political leaders to make admittedly excruciating moral trade-offs. Whilst experts play a valuable role in informing these decisions, they can’t make them for us.
As far as I know, there isn’t a peer-reviewed journal article in Lancet telling us to place the wellbeing of adults ahead of the wellbeing of children. Yet that is what we’ve done. Or that movie stars and footballers should be granted exemptions to rules before people hoping to visit dying relatives.
These are moral trade-offs. And any time anyone’s tried to talk about them it’s firstly disgracefully been implied that they don’t care about people dying. And secondly, politicians have gutlessly responded that they are just “following the experts.”
As government encroaches ever more into our lives and public policy becomes more complicated, people need to be awake to the fact that expert advice is being weaponised in politics more than ever – from climate change to public health to the economy. Whilst expert advice can be useful and help us make decisions, it is only advice. In a democracy, the final call on public policy matters – and difficult moral trade-offs — is made by us.
As Antifa and BLM burn churches and Bibles in the USA in Pakistan ‘According to the prosecution record, the Sera-i-Saleh police had arrested Ch Mohammad Ayaz, a resident of Baldhair village, on the complaint of his wife on Sept 13, 2015.
The complainant had told the police that she was living in a rented house with her husband and three children. On Sept 13, she said after heated arguments with her over some family matter, he, in a fit of anger, took out a copy of the Holy Quran from the cupboard and defiled it.
The police recovered the desecrated copy of the holy book and registered a criminal case against the accused under section 295-B of the blasphemy law. After a five-year trial, the court of additional sessions judge-III, Shah Wali Khan, convicted Ayaz and sentenced him to life (25 years).’https://www.dawn.com/news/1580058
In Australia the Leftist, Loony, save the earth politician and bureaucrat seems to be running the show for almost everything. For instance ‘The Federal Coalition’s ‘plan’ to power Australia with gas-fired power plants it has yet to build, with gas supplies it does not have sounds more like palliative care than a cure for its self-inflicted power pricing and supply calamity.
Having wrecked our once reliable grid by subsidising chaotically intermittent wind and solar, it seems it’s time to resuscitate the hopes of dispatchable power plants. It’s a bit like choking the patient, and then putting them on a ventilator.
The junior Coalition partner, the Nationals – who remain a force to be reckoned with in regional NSW and Queensland, where numerous coal mines and coal-fired power plants still operate – are less than amused that PM, Scott Morrison and Energy Minister, Angus Taylor are talking up a future for gas-fired plants, when the country has been scrounging for gas for domestic purposes over the last decade – thanks to the several States that have banned the exploitation of gas and even exploration for it.
Assuming the Feds can find the gas and get the States to allow them to get it out of ground, it won’t be fuelling efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. Instead, it will be chewed up by a few new Open Cycle Gas Turbines (fast-start ‘peakers’) and dozens of Wartsila 50DF reciprocating engines with a capacity of 18MW each (see above).
The key benefits of using what are giant ship engines, is that they can run on either gas, diesel or bunker fuel – and be fired up to reach their peak load within about five minutes. Ideal for responding to routine wind and solar power output collapses of the kind that have plagued South Australia for years, and that now threaten the entire Eastern Grid.
Of course, the only reason Australia has been reduced to importing dozens of Finnish built ship engines is the market chaos that has been delivered by the Federal government’s Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target.
The Leftist Loony Lovies are out for our children and grandchildren. Proverbs 1:15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path
‘A Christian school teaching assistant who was fired from Farmor’s School in Fairford, Gloucestershire last year after she shared concerns about plans to teach that gender is a matter of choice to young school children is seeking £56,000 ($71,560) in damages at a UK employment tribunal.
Christie Higgs had worked at the school for seven years before being fired over two Facebook posts which didn’t mention her employer and were shared under her maiden name to around 100 of her friends. The investigation that ultimately resulted in Higgs being terminated was triggered by a single anonymous complaint.
In the first October 24, 2018 Facebook post, Higgs shared her concerns about a UK government consultation into making Relationships and Sex Education mandatory in schools, described the proposal as “brainwashing our children,” and linked to a petition opposing the government’s plans.
In the second October 27, 2018 Facebook post, Higgs linked to an article about schools using brightly illustrated children’s books to teach children about transgender ideology and wrote: “This is happening in our Primary Schools now! ”. The books featured in the article include a book about a boy who wants to wear a dress and a book about a red crayon that discovers it’s really blue.
At the time of the second post, Higgs had discovered that several of these books had been introduced at her son’s Church of England primary school.
After Higgs made the first Facebook post, a single anonymous complaint was made to the school on October 26, 2018 which accused her of “posting homophobic and prejudiced views against the LGBT community on Facebook.”
Days after this complaint, Higgs was suspended, investigated, and ultimately dismissed in January 2019 after a disciplinary hearing.
According to the Christian Legal Center, which is representing Higgs, the school indicated that Higgs was terminated for “illegal discrimination, serious inappropriate use of social media, and online comments that could bring the school into disrepute and damage the reputation of the school.”
However, the school admitted that there was “no evidence” its reputation had been damaged to date.
Higgs has also accused a school governor and the disciplinary hearing’s chairman of branding her a “pro-Nazi,” “far-right” extremist during the disciplinary hearing.
Additionally, Higgs said that while she was being investigated, the school had trawled through her work emails, questioned why she had used her school email to receive “inspirational” quotations from the Bible, and told her that she had no absolute rights to freedom of expression or to share her religious beliefs.
In a statement submitted to the employment tribunal, Higgs said: “I believe that God created mankind as ‘male and female’ and what he has created is good. He does not make mistakes. I therefore do not believe in the modern ideas of gender fluidity and transgenderism.”
Higgs added that she was concerned that many parents across the country didn’t know what was going on and that she felt it “morally necessary to speak out in defense of the Bible truth when false and harmful doctrines are being promoted.”
The chief executive of the Christian Legal Center, Andrea Williams, told MailOnline: “This case is about the freedom to hold Christian views about what it means to be human. Many Christians have faced pressure for expressing these views in the workplace before, but in this case, Kristie has been dismissed for sharing her views among friends on Facebook.”
Williams added that Higgs has an exemplary record at the school and that if she doesn’t win the case, her entire career will be tarnished and she won’t be able to work with children again.
“I have been punished for sharing concerns about relationships and sex education,” Higgs said. “My number one concern has always been the effect that learning about sex and gender in school will have on children at such a young age.”
Higgs’ case against her former employer follows several other people being fired after challenging transgender ideology on social media.
Last month, assistant literary agent Sasha White was fired from her job at The Tobias Literary Agency after transgender activists complained that her alternative Twitter account, which made no reference to her employer, was “transphobic.”
And earlier this month, Canadian political candidate Roland Michaud was dropped by his party after online complaints about an almost two year old meme about Target’s 2016 announcement that it would be allowing “transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity.”
In addition to people being fired for opposing transgender ideology, many major institutions, including TedXLondon and CNN, are erasing references to women in their public statements and articles and replacing it with terms such as “individuals with a cervix” as part of a push towards more “inclusive” language.’https://reclaimthenet.org/christie-higgs-employment-tribunal-lgbt-facebook-posts/
Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Ginsberg were cut from the same cloth and that’s why Pelosi can lie with a straight face when speaking of Ruth Ginsberg.
‘As Speaker Pelosi said after her passing, “Justice Ginsburg embodied justice, brilliance and goodness, and her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who sacrifice and strive to build a better future for our children. Every family in America benefited from her brilliant legacy and courage. Her opinions have unequivocally cemented the precedent that all men and women are created equal.”’https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/92120
Killing babies in the womb is murder and those who promote it and perform it are therefore murderers!
‘Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who defended what she argued was a constitutional “right” to partial-birth abortion, passed away on Friday night. She was 87 years old.
In the 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart and the 2007 case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, Ginsburg made clear her view that the U.S. Constitution protected a “right” to abortion (as the court had ruled in the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) and that this right extended to the practice of partial-birth abortion.
The 2000 case of Stenberg vs. Carhart focused on a Nebraska state law that outlawed partial-birth abortions. At the time, there were also 29 other states that banned partial-birth abortions.
The court ruled 5-4 in Stenberg that Nebraska’s partial birth abortion law was unconstitutional. The five-justice majority included Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
In his dissenting opinion in Stenberg, Justice Thomas described the partial-birth abortion procedure which the court’s majority declared a constitutional right.
“Although there are variations, it is generally performed as follows: After dilating the cervix, the physician will grab the fetus by its feet and pull the fetal body out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. At this stage of development, the head is the largest part of the body. Assuming the physician has performed the dilation procedure correctly, the head will be held inside the uterus by the women’s cervix. While the fetus is stuck in this position, dangling partly out of the woman’s body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, the physician uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The physician will then either crush the skull or will use a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapse the fetus’ head, and pull the fetus from the uterus.”
In her own opinion, concurring in the court’s decision to throw out the Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion, Justice Ginsburg cited Parenthood vs. Casey and said that the partial-birth abortion ban “violates the Constitution.”
“A state regulation that ‘has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus’ violates the Constitution,” Ginsburg wrote in her Stenberg opinion.
Seven years later, in the case of Gonzales vs. Carhart, the court reviewed a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. This time the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the partial-birth abortion ban. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent in which Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer joined.
In this dissent, Ginsburg argued that it was “irrational” to ban partial-birth abortion.
“In sum,” wrote Ginsburg, “the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.”
She then argued that the court’s opinion upholding the partial-birth abortion ban was part of an “effort to chip away” at the “right” to abortion.
Giving money to the UN is like the spending on the Climate Scam! It is MONEY tossed down a hole without a bottom. If the following wasn’t so serious one would laugh. Why? Because if there is one thing Afghanistan is NOT known for, it is gender equality and the championing of the rights of women. Nevertheless, “Afghanistan secures a coveted seat at the UN women’s commission,”Al Jazeera, September 15, 2020:Afghanistan has secured a seat at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) for the first time in its history, the South Asian country’s Permanent Mission to the UN announced on Tuesday.
Afghanistan received 39 votes to find a place at the prestigious body, which is dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women globally. India also secured a seat.
China was also a contender but failed to secure enough votes. The term will last from 2021 until 2025.
”. The books featured in the article include a book about a boy who wants to wear a dress and a book about a red crayon that discovers it’s really blue.
whatyareckon 