The climate change story has become just as much of a fact as the evolution story has. However, is it true as told by those who are pushing it so hard? Well, take twenty minutes to watch or listen to Joseph Hubbard as he speaks from Iceland on this subject.
Science
What is the responsibility of todays politicians? Is it to ruin the electricity grid so bad that the contemporary comforts of life MUST be abandoned?
‘Once upon a time Australians enjoyed reliable and affordable power, but that was before heavily subsidised and chaotically intermittent wind and solar entered the scene.
Over the last few summers, Australians have been treated to power rationing and load shedding, as well as the odd mass blackout. These events have an uncanny correlation with dead calm days/nights and sunset that coincides with bursts of warm weather and rising mercury.
Summer heatwaves are part and parcel of Australian life.
Over the last four or five decades, though, an increasing number of Australians have enjoyed the benefit of reverse cycle air-conditioning, warming homes in winter and taking the ferocity out of their often-blistering summers.
Now Australians are being told to turn off their air conditioners and/or to leave home and go back to work in order to keep the grid from a total ‘system black’.’ There is more at STT on this so be sure to go there and read it and like as well. https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/07/sweating-it-renewable-energy-crisis-means-australians-cant-run-air-conditioners-during-heatwaves/
Now, on a New South Wales government web site we, the lowly citizen, are told how we can save energy and money.
‘At Anytime
Use less hot water.
Have shorter showers. (Even if really dirty?)
Check energy rating labels when buying new appliances.
Upgrade your home insulation, windows and blinds to heat-proof your house.
Switch off appliances at the wall to use one to five percent less energy.
Switch off lights when you leave a room. (I remember this from when a child in the 40’s and 50’s.)
In summer
Use fans instead of air conditioning. (I am old enough to remember when window air conditioning was the new thing. We have PROGRESSERD now to where the POLITICIANS want us to shut them off!)
If you use an air conditioner, each degree warmer on the thermostat can save you 10%. (One wonders if the politicians offices are kept this way!)
Closing gaps and cracks around the house can save you $50 a year.
‘Zone’ your home by cooling one part of your house and cut down on cooling in other areas.
Close curtains and blinds during the day.
Cross-ventilation and open windows in the evening allow for natural breezes. (Oh, the NATURAL breeze flowing through the house along with the flying bugs etc.)
In winter
By day, let natural light in.
Close curtains and doors at night.
‘Zone’ your home by warming the rooms you use the most.
Use door snakes to stop draughts.
Rug up and use blankets. (Oh, the blankets! PILE them on to keep warm. One wonders how many blankets the politician’s family has to keep warm?)’https://energysaver.nsw.gov.au/households/fine-tune-your-home/free-ways-save-energy-and-money
These Australian politicians have ruined the energy grid and have no plan to rebuild it. We had better get online and learn how to live the Amish way!
Romans 1:20a “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead…”
‘A new science called biomimetics is making news. In the past we have talked about how some of man’s designs are often similar to God’s which do the same job. However, in biomimetics, researchers actively seek to study the creation to learn of designs that will solve engineering problems.
We are all familiar with the story of how thistle seeds inspired Velcro. Engineers have used the design of the owl’s wing to make the structures that carry electrical current to trains. The result is a much quieter ride. The moth’s eyes’ ability not to reflect light helps make it harder to be spotted by birds. The same design has now been used to make a nonreflective film. The result is a film that can be used to help prevent windows from reflecting light. This film will soon be available commercially. Many dyes are toxic, yet many creatures manage to show off bright colors without using toxic substances. Materials engineers studied how the jewel beetle produces its color. The result is a film that seems to change color depending on the angle from which you view it.
No scientist can offer a rational explanation for how so many thoughtful and efficient designs could be generated in a mindless universe. These designs are fingerprints God left all over the creation so that man might seek Him out.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/can-there-be-design-without-a-designer-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-there-be-design-without-a-designer-2&mc_cid=5822002dca&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
2 Peter 3:6 “Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished…”
‘Charles Darwin once wrote of the fossil record, “No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” That’s because evolutionary orthodoxy says that fossils are buried and formed by slow, natural processes. In reality, there are many fossils of soft-bodied animals like jellyfish and squid. That is evidence, of course, of rapid, catastrophic burial at the time of the flood. Darwin rejected the flood and therefore got the science wrong.
It is not unusual to find deep sea creatures in the lowest levels of fossil-bearing rocks. This, too, would make sense in light of the flood. But it is clear that Darwin was wrong again. While living specimens of some of the fossilized squids have now been found, they also have all of the complete features of modern squids. They all have fully functional refracting-lens eyes and the well-known “jet propulsion” of modern squid. One fossilized squid, dated 150 million years old by evolutionists, was so perfectly preserved it looked like it could still have ink. Researchers even reconstituted real ink from its fossilized ink sac. The ink, which looks the same as modern squid ink, was even used to draw a picture of the fossil. There should have been no ink after all that time, so it looks like the Darwinists were wrong on the age, too.
In contrast, God’s Word stands vindicated.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/darwin-and-his-followers-draw-the-wrong-conclusions-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=darwin-and-his-followers-draw-the-wrong-conclusions-2&mc_cid=634fa8abf4&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
You and were not there in the very beginning of what we now see all around us so if we want to know anything of that past we look to those we often call the ‘experts’. Now, ‘We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science’ and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.
CSI shows abound on TV these days. They give us the impression that CSI is ‘all about the facts’ and that ‘the facts speak for themselves’. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science actually works. The facts can’t speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather, people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past.
There are also numerous uncertainties in forensic science that show that the TV programs give us a blatantly idealized picture of what really goes on. For instance, evidence can be ‘planted’ by criminals wanting to confuse the forensic detectives. Lab technicians can inadvertently mess up the experiment. The experimental method used on the evidence may be suspect (for a whole host of reasons). Investigators can draw poor conclusions from the data. Unusual circumstances may invalidate an inference from a general scientific principle to the specific historical situation presented by the crime scene because the principle doesn’t take into account those circumstances. Therefore, the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic inference is quite large, and filled with questionable assumptions.
We often distinguish between the science of present processes and the science of figuring out what happened in the past (see ‘It’s not science’ and Argument: Creationism is religion, not science). It’s a helpful distinction to make because it shows that we need to test evolution and millions of years differently than we would test, say, gravity or the speed of light. It also shows how there is generally a greater potential for uncertainty in the science of past events than there is in the science of present processes.
But many critics of biblical creation have found what they think is a good counter to this distinction. They claim that the science used to show that evolution is fact “works just like CSI” (Crime Scene Investigation).2 This argument seems stronger than the simplistic ‘religion vs science’ idea. The scientific approach used by evolutionists to try to reconstruct the past does have a lot in common with CSI—they are both examples of what could be called ‘forensic’ or ‘historical’ science (see CSI … and CMI). In each case, there is an attempt to use good science to reconstruct the past.
CSI shows abound on TV these days. They give us the impression that CSI is ‘all about the facts’ and that ‘the facts speak for themselves’. This is a blatantly false picture of how forensic science actually works. The facts can’t speak at all, let alone for themselves. Rather, people interpret the facts according to their assumptions about the past.
There are also numerous uncertainties in forensic science that show that the TV programs give us a blatantly idealized picture of what really goes on. For instance, evidence can be ‘planted’ by criminals wanting to confuse the forensic detectives. Lab technicians can inadvertently mess up the experiment. The experimental method used on the evidence may be suspect (for a whole host of reasons). Investigators can draw poor conclusions from the data. Unusual circumstances may invalidate an inference from a general scientific principle to the specific historical situation presented by the crime scene because the principle doesn’t take into account those circumstances. Therefore, the gap between circumstantial fact and forensic inference is quite large, and filled with questionable assumptions.
Long-agers do not have that luxury with their ‘clocks’. They must extrapolate their datasets back thousands and millions of times to establish a timeline. It is one thing to assume that a CSI ‘clock’ will be reliable this time because we’ve seen it work before. But evolutionists have never seen their ‘clocks’ work. How could they? We haven’t been investigating anywhere near long enough to verify million-year timelines!
Moreover, there is evidence that the deep time ‘clocks’ don’t work. Carbon dating consistently gives thousands of years for fossils and diamonds that are supposedly many millions of years old and there are plenty of cases of false dates for rocks of known age (K-Ar dating, for example), which cast serious doubt on the methods being used to give ages for rocks of unknown age. The fact that the carbon dates are just pushed aside/rejected out of hand shows that the whole paradigm is driven by the story, not the evidence. That is, dating is a story-telling exercise as much as any other part of the evolutionary history.
Could there also be any mitigating circumstances that would suggest long-agers had misread their ‘clocks’? Long-agers ask this question—but only in a specific long-age framework. When the forensic data doesn’t fit that timeline, it is reinterpreted or ignored (See Age of the earth). However, the Bible records some events that would produce such mitigating circumstances—the Creation, the Fall, and Noah’s Flood. They would skew many long-age ‘clocks’ toward an older timeline. They may have caused the ‘clocks’ to ‘tick’ much faster than they do today—and there is evidence that this has occurred, in fact (see RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!). So, unlike CSI ‘clocks’—long-age ‘clocks’ can’t be independently verified, and long-agers ignore evidence of mitigating circumstances that could drastically reduce their timeline.
Where are the evolutionary skeptics?
Think about a murder trial. There is a prosecutor and a defendant. Both sides seek to prove their case using the evidence presented. One tries to prove the defendant is guilty, and the other tries to cast doubt on his guilt. Each side adopts different starting points to interpret the evidence. What does this mean for CSI methods? It means they will be vigorously tested to see just how reliable they are. Judges, juries, witnesses, and lawyers all debate and evaluate forensic methods. They have to—nobody wants to send an innocent man to prison, or let a guilty man get away, just because some method was more or less reliable than we supposed.
Of course, we all have heard cases of wrongful conviction, like the dingo case, and likely cases of wrongful exoneration too. So even with this rigorous testing system in place, mistakes can very easily be made. But there are no such checks and balances with evolution and long-age geology. Peer review is not the vigorous fact-checking enterprise it is often made out to be. The peers who are doing the reviewing are typically all evolutionists. So unlike in the murder trial where two sides debate the matter from different assumptions, in evolutionary natural history everyone adopts the same framework—evolution and long-age geology. In essence, evolution and long-age geology are always innocent, and biblical creation is always guilty.
Eyewitnesses— synergy vs abandonment
CSI doesn’t operate alone. It often works with, and sometimes against, another form of historical evidence—testimony, to establish what happened in a crime. But most of the time, testimony and forensics work together to paint a picture of what actually happened.
On the other hand, long-agers have to assume that no testimony could be relevant to what they are studying. They assume they are studying ‘prehistory’—which by definition cannot involve testimony. This rules out the Bible before evidence is even considered, and leaves forensic science as the only way to investigate prehistory. And while it is true that witnesses can be fooled, so can forensic scientists. There are also certain biblical events like Creation, the Fall, and the Flood, when God acted powerfully in history, that would inevitably produce problems for anyone relying solely on forensic science, without knowing of the biblical testimony (or while rejecting it—2 Peter 3:3–6. See BioLogos and the age of the earth). That’s typically not a problem for CSI (though remember Lindy Chamberlain), but it’s a fatal problem for investigations of evolution and for long-age historical geology—they cannot work with testimony. But God was there. God has told us what happened from the beginning in Genesis. And He is the perfect eyewitness—He knows everything and never lies.
A caution—and exhortation
CSI is a useful, but fallible methodology. And while the Bible isn’t fallible, forensic science based on the Bible is. Forensic models of history are useful to show how the facts of the present world make sense within a framework of biblical history, and they help to confirm that history. And some forensic models may be better than others. But all such models are always wide open to revision, even abandonment (see Flood models and biblical realism). So don’t place your ultimate trust even in creation models—place your ultimate trust in the Bible—nothing less, and nothing more.’
References
- Revisions made in response to criticisms of this article in Enyart, B., RSR Nye/Ham Debate Analysis Pt. 2, 10 February 2014. Return to text.
- CSI stands here for Crime Scene Investigation, not limited to fictional activities within the TV show using the same acronym in its title. Return to text.’https://creation.com/csi-evolution?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Forensic+science+and+one+of+the+greatest+miscarriages+of+justice+in+Australian+history&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2020.10.02
Politicians MUST live in another world. If they did live where others live why would they push such non-sense as renewables as the answer for energy efficiency and lower power bills? Oh, they want to save the planet! Well, higher power bills will will save energy because electricity will be too costly to use but it still will not save the planet!
Nevertheless, politicians continue to push renewables every chance they get repeating the mantra we the consumers will save money in our bill. That’s not true at least for the power company we use which charges MORE for ‘Green Energy’! On the power company’s web site it tells the consumer ‘Add green energyYou can offset your carbon footprint by adding GreenPower or Green Gas to your account. For electricity, it’ll cost from 65 cents extra a week. For natural gas, it’s just $1 extra on all residential plans.0%25%50%100%Electricityextra 2.8c/kWh (incl GST)’ https://www.originenergy.com.au/electricity-gas/plans.html
Oh, I can offset my carbon footprint by paying MORE money! Yet, the New South Wales government tells the consumer they are ‘increasing affordability by reducing wholesale electricity costs’.https://energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-energy-zones#-why-is-the-nsw-government-delivering-renewable-energy-zones- These people know how to lie with a straight face!
Here in New South Wales Matt Kean is the Minister for Energy and Environment. He is a BIG pusher of the climate scam renewables. In June of this year Kean said “We have some of the best renewable resources you’ll find anywhere on the planet,” Matt Kean tells RenewEconomy in the latest episode of the weekly Energy Insiders podcast. “We’ve got great sun. We’ve got great wind. And guess what? We’ve got the ability to have a lot of pumped hydro.
“So we’re well placed to be an energy superpower. The flow on effect from that means cheaper bills for consumers. Cheaper bills for business (and) more opportunities here. And the creation of jobs with businesses that are energy intensive.
“If they’re looking for a global competitive advantage when it comes to low cost energy, we can provide it, but we’ve got to move quickly and we’ve got to move now. And that is an opportunity for us to be an economic superpower, not just an energy superpower, an economic superpower. And it’s too big an opportunity not to grab.”
It’s a theme that is catching on in the conservative side of politics in Australia, not that you’d notice from reading the mainstream media.
Kean, of course, is a Liberal MP in the conservative Berejiklian government in NSW, and his views are shared by the Tasmania Liberal government, which has an aim of reaching 200 per cent renewables within 20 years so it can export the surplus to the mainland, or attract clean industries to its state; and the South Australia Liberal government, which wants to reach net 100 per cent renewables by 2030, and also become a renewable export superpower, exporting to neighbouring states and other countries.
It’s not something that you hear much about in the federal Coalition, or even the Liberal and LNP state oppositions in Victoria and Queensland, but Kean says you simply can’t ignore the science, and you can’t ignore global trends.
“The world is moving in this direction. Fifty three per cent of the world’s GDP has signed up to achieve zero net emissions by 2050. So it’s only going in one direction,” Kean says.
“You’d imagine if the Democrats take the White House, then that final domino will fall and it will turbo-charge the world’s move towards zero emissions. We’ve got two choices here, as far as I can see. We can set ourselves up for success …. be a prosperous nation where jobs are created here domestically and our wealth is created here domestically, or we can stick our head in the sand, ignore the global reality that is occurring.
“As far as I’m concerned, there is only one way to go, and that is to modernise the grid, deliver cheap, reliable energy and set ourselves up to be an energy and economic superpower in a low carbon economy.”’https://reneweconomy.com.au/kean-says-nsw-can-be-renewable-energy-superpower-or-stick-its-head-in-the-sand-50892/
As I said earlier. these people do not live in the real world. Kean would live to see Biden win because Biden would ruin the USA via renewables! Now, the above article motivated me to write to my state and Federal members who are both in the supposedly conservative National Party. I wrote:
‘Dear Member,
Do you agree with this statement made by Matt Kean in June of this year?
“The world is moving in this direction. Fifty three per cent of the world’s GDP has signed up to achieve zero net emissions by 2050. So it’s only going in one direction,” Kean says.
“You’d imagine if the Democrats take the White House, then that final domino will fall and it will turbo-charge the world’s move towards zero emissions. We’ve got two choices here, as far as I can see. We can set ourselves up for success …. be a prosperous nation where jobs are created here domestically and our wealth is created here domestically, or we can stick our head in the sand, ignore the global reality that is occurring.” Kean says NSW can be renewable energy superpower, or stick its head in the sand
Whether you agree or not tell me how the Coalition really differs from the Labor/Greens on this net zero emission by 2050! AT LEAST IN THE LAST ELECTION LABOR WAS UP FRONT AND WENT TO THE ELECTION WITH THE ZERO EMISSIONS BY 2050 WHEREAS THE COALITION TOOK COAL INTO PARLIAMENT!’
Do I really expect anything to change when these politicians are ‘following the science’?
The politicians in California and New South Wales, Australia https://energy.nsw.gov.au/ seem to be drinking the Kool Aid of the climate scam. While New South Wales has some of the highest electricity prices in the world the California climate scam geniuses ‘…have mandated that all cars in the state must be electric by 2035, it seems like a good time to ask what, exactly, this is going to do to the state’s already fragile power grid.
In what will likely come as a surprise to lawmakers who we can almost guarantee didn’t think about this in advance, it turns out that electrifying all of the state’s vehicles could be “an immense burden” on the state’s grid, according to Bloomberg.
In fact, this past week’s executive order could drive up power demands in the state by as much as 9.5% over the next 10 years and 25% by 2035. This could be a “nightmare” scenario for a state where power is often so tight that rolling blackouts are ordered to prevent the system from collapsing during heat waves.
Additionally, if everyone were to plug in their vehicles at the same time, at night, the problem could be concentrated and even worse.
Erica Bowman, director of resource and environmental planning and strategy at utility Southern California Edison said: “It could go either way. It really depends on planning.”
What planning means is the idea that people would have to stagger when and how they plug in their vehicles for charging, taking into account when the state’s solar energy kicks in and when wind power peaks. Ah, yes, what a wonderful quality of life California offers, where you’ll soon have to ask permission to plug in your car just to get from point A to point B.
Everyone plugging their car in at 6PM after work could “lead to disaster”, according to the report. It’s the same time everyone also decides to turn on their air conditioning, stoves and televisions. At the same time, solar power plunges around sunset, forcing gas plants to pick up the slack. If gas plants are down or there’s no imports available, you wind up with a rolling blackout scenario, like the state had last month.
Jules Kortenhorst, chief executive officer of the Rocky Mountain Institute, said cars will have to “talk to the grid” to figure out when the best time to charge is: “The car will talk to the grid. ‘It’s 6 pm. Wait 15 minutes, because I’m crunched a bit.’ You won’t spend a second thinking about it.”
Californians bought about 1.9 million cars and light duty trucks last year. The state will simply need more power if it mandates that they are all EVs going forward. It will also need to deploy charging stations much faster than it has in the past.
Pedro Pizzaro of Edison International concluded: “It’s not doable a year from now, but it is doable a decade from now. And that gives society time to deploy infrastructure for chargers and get consumers comfortable.”
And California citizens, already leaving the state in droves due to rising taxes, will be on the hook to pay for it all. But hey, back to saving the planet at all costs!’https://www.activistpost.com/2020/09/california-ev-mandate-could-lead-to-disaster-for-states-already-fragile-electric-grid.html
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.
Different time frame, different solution. There are probably a half-dozen other predictions with different time frames. Why this clock? Why not install clocks up and down that building so everyone can pick the day they want to die?’https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2020/09/23/laughable-climate-clock-tells-us-how-long-we-have-left-to-save-the-earth-n958539?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=08b5a1e2f2263b83e918fb56d7a12a3e&recip=26169367
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.
Genesis 7:11-12 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. “
‘It is said that the tongue-twister “she sells sea shells on the seashore” refers to Mary Anning (1799-1847). However, Anning was not selling sea shells at Lyme Regis, but rather fossils that she had discovered on the beach. It is interesting that, while this pioneer paleontologist was not selling shells on the beach, there have been found fossil sea shells on mountains and well inland. When I was a youth, my family often traveled to the Peak District National Park, which is about as far away from the coast as you can get on the island of Great Britain, being about a three hours drive from the nearest sea. Yet, walking over the hills, we would always find fossil clams and the like. It is estimated that perhaps 95% of the fossils you will find are marine invertebrates. Evolutionary geologists think that there may have been periods when continents sunk lower than sea level, but the rock of which continents are formed is less dense than that of the ocean floor. So how do Christians explain this fact?
The onset of the Worldwide Flood would not have been a gentle affair. The breaking open of the fountains of the deep would cause new crustal material to push continental mountains higher. And tsunamis would have washed marine life onto land in a series of encroachments and ever-decreasing retreats of the ocean. The existence of millions of such fossils is fully consistent with the biblical account of the Flood.’https://creationmoments.com/sermons/sea-shells-on-a-mountain/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sea-shells-on-a-mountain&mc_cid=c68801f72b&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
whatyareckon 