‘If you cut off the tails of cats, will they give birth to tail-less kittens? Of course not! Yet, more than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed, imprisoned or even killed for disagreeing that a similar idea might work when applied to plants.
Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed in the 1930s and ‘40s because the scientist at the head of the Soviet Academy of Agriculture Sciences squashed all dissent from his own view. And he had the power of the communist state behind him!
His name was Trofim Lysenko, and he believed the Soviets could transform Siberia into “a land of orchards and gardens” by “training” seeds to handle cold weather and harsh conditions. He believed that plants could be engrafted to permanently change the heritable characteristics of the stock. Such ideas were based on Darwin’s predecessor – the early evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). Lamarck argued for evolution through inheritance of acquired characteristics. In other words, build up your muscles so you can then pass bigger muscles on to your kids.
Charles Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species in 1859 to make Lysenko’s ideas seem more scientific by appealing to “deep time” to allow for the imperceptible changes we cannot observe, and appealing also to “natural selection” to try to make the heritable changes more plausible.
But Lamarck was the first to suggest the famous evolutionary scenario of giraffes acquiring a long neck. Giraffe parents supposedly stretched above other animals to reach the leaves of tall trees. And thus they passed on their increasingly stretched necks to their offspring through succeeding generations.
Lysenko was an evolutionist too impatient for Darwin, so he put Lamarckism into practice. For example, he believed he could transform a spring-wheat species into an autumn-wheat species via 2 to 4 years of autumn planting. It would supposedly condition them to “a revolutionary change”. But genetically this was impossible since the spring wheat species had 28 chromosomes in 4 sets of 7, and the autumn species had 42 chromosomes in 6 sets of 7. Change and adaptation is always limited to within the original species or “kind” by virtue of the genes needing to be there in the first place – put in place by our Great Designer and Maker. Lysenko’s plantings on the collectivist farms never took hold or simply rotted away. Geneticists in free market countries knew Lysenko to be a fool.
But Lysenko and the Soviets under Joseph Stalin were true believers in the ideology that mankind needed to “reset” the old and traditional (“bourgeoise”) ways. And that this could be made to happen as society “toughed it out”. In other words, they believed in Marxism. “Tear down the old order to build a new one.” Build it back better! Sound familiar?
Great famines took place in the Soviet Union under this ideologically driven pseudo-science and the false hope it raised. The famines were made worse, of course, as private farms were stolen and put into collectives, and successful farmers were persecuted. Lysenkoism was kept in place throughout Stalin’s life, and it ruined agriculture in other communist countries, too. These included Eastern Europe and Communist China, where horrible famines took place in the 1950s under Mao Tse Tung.
As I’ve pointed out in previous letters, we are bombarded today with much pseudo-science, not only Evolutionism but also Climate Change Alarmism. We are fed fear and false hopes which are driving a “great reset” of world culture, education, government and economics. Many are on board with it – just as they were in the days of Lysenko, Stalin and Mao.
Every storm or series of storms now gets blamed on Climate Change – which is, of course, ridiculous. What little science there is in an agenda-driven pseudo-science becomes tainted by whatever assumptions about earth history enter the narratives or computer models. And much scientific research is funded by government grants. The research grants are written with a desired outcome in mind, and those applying for the grants know in advance whether to assume Evolution or to assume man-made Climate Change.
An interesting development is the new awareness of how much Communist Chinese money is funding elite American University research. Since the Department of Education recently began enforcing Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 for disclosure of university funding, it has come to light that most of the $6.5 billion of undeclared university research funding has come from Communist China. And much of it is to promote climate alarmism – considered a weapon for distracting and weakening the U.S. economy.
We need to keep going back to the Bible. That’s where the truth is. The desire for a “great reset” goes all the way back to the Serpent in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believed Satan’s lies, and they wanted their “eyes to be opened”, “to be as gods”, knowing (a perfected knowing of) good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). They wanted to be “enlightened” (as they were in a way, vs. 7) and, therefore, they went along with the temptation to tear down the original order.
This Satanic philosophy of tearing down God’s order is what Karl Marx promoted (The Devil and Karl Marx, P. Kengor; Marx and Satan, Rev. R. Wurmbrand). It also manifested at the Tower of Babel, as Nimrod (whose name means “to rebel”) argued against God and for the “enlightenment” of making themselves “as gods”. Nimrod is the classic type of anti-Christ. It should be no surprise to see in our day a great push for a Great Reset to One World Economy, One World Government and One World Religion under a controlling system apart from God.
But we know from the Bible who wins in the end. And we know that those who follow Christ will win with Him!’https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/is-the-great-reset-a-great-thing-or-a-satanic-thing/?mc_cid=db8e997ff0&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
‘The pseudo-science of climate change is replete with scare stories. New Scientist recently contained a most disingenuous example, with the headline: “Climate change will make world too hot for 60 per cent of fish species”. “Fish are at a far greater risk from climate change than previously thought,” the article opined.
Yet, in the very next sentence, the article conceded that the figure of 60% of species becoming extinct was only a concern in the “worst-case scenario of 5°C of global warming.” A rise of 5°C is equivalent to a 9°F rise. Previous warming models – which have still over-estimated global temperature rises by more than 200% – have suggested rises of 2.3°C. The New Scientist article suggests that a 1.5°C rise would kill off 10% of fish species. Actual temperature rises have stayed below 1°C, with no noticeable reduction in species of bony fish.
The article is fallacious on many levels. Evolutionists have made great play in the past of criticizing creationists for referring to “fish”, as evolutionists have concluded that former fish class is actually three classes – bony fish, cartilaginous fish and jawless fish. Yet, this climate-change article, purporting to be scientific, uses the old fish classification. Also, the extraordinary ability of fish to adapt to different environments has been overlooked.
God made the oceans to teem with fish. And His promise to continue the seasons as they are has not been superseded.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/a-fishy-climate-change-scare/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-fishy-climate-change-scare&mc_cid=3923d50855&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
The following is from an email sent to me from a solar company. Supposedly all one hears with this climate change rhetoric is that solar is FREE! NO it isn’t FREE for those objects that are used to collect the solar cost and MOST of those solar panels are made in CHINA! So, according to this email;
|‘With a looming materials shortage in China, it’s now time to invest in solar. There has never been a better time to buy solar with amazing government rebates, affordable high-quality systems and energy bill savings too good to pass up… but it’s all about to change. Why? China, the world leader in solar panel production, is about to grind to a halt. The blame A Bloomberg report  points to a material shortage in silicon, the main component of solar panel technology. Industrial Silicon prices are soaring by 300% percent, which manufacturers are passing on to consumers with panel prices predicted to rise 30%.As global solar demand surges, a drop in supply means Aussie’s families will soon have to pay more for solar. You could be expected to fork out an extra $1000 for a 6.6 kW system within the next couple of months. And the rebate is reducing again on the 31st of December, increasing the out of pocket expense further if you don’t take action now.|
|Why should you install solar now? Solar turns your roof into a powerplant that packs a punch! Slashing your power bills by up to 85%. Save your household thousands every year. With the highest solar rebates in the world ~($6,916), Aussies lead the world in residential solar. Nearly 3 million Aussies already save big with solar.Yes, you should consider installing before the Chinese Solar Crisis and rebate reductions kick-in, so you can get the best bang for your buck.’ An Email|
Our Western governments, and in this case Australia, are throwing billions into this Ponzi scheme! The climate changes according to the sun which was created on the fourth day of creation!
‘MELTING GLACIERS MAKE MORE SALMON RIVERS: Glaciers in the Pacific Northwest of USA and Canada are melting and turning into streams of flowing fresh water. Scientists from the University of Birmingham have studied some of these new rivers and found salmon had colonised them when migrating from the ocean into rivers in order to spawn. These scientists have joined with Kara Pitman, a geomorphologist at Simon Fraser University, and colleagues from USA and Switzerland to estimate how much extra salmon habitat will become available if 315 of the thousands of glaciers in the Pacific Northwest USA and Canada melt according to current climate change models. They estimated a potential increase in rivers of 6,150 km. This is almost the equivalent of the length of the Mississippi River. Taking into account that salmon need pristine rivers of cool flowing water with a less than 10% incline the researchers estimated the salmon habitat in this region would increase by 27%. Kara Pitman commented: “Once conditions stabilise in the newly-formed streams, salmon can colonise these areas quite quickly. It’s a common misconception that all salmon return home to the streams they were born in. Most do, but some individuals will stray — migrating into new streams to spawn and, if conditions are favourable, the population can increase rapidly”. Alexander Milner a river ecologist at the University of Birmingham, explained: “Colonization by salmon can occur relatively quickly after glacial retreat creates favourable spawning habitat in the new stream. For example, Stonefly Creek was colonised within 10 years by pink salmon that grew rapidly to more than 5,000 spawners. Other species also colonised including Coho and Sockeye salmon, especially where a lake is associated with the stream”. Greg Knox, of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, a salmon conservation organisation, commented: “It shows you how adaptive and resilient salmon are”.
References and Links: Science (AAAS) News 7 December 2021, ScienceDaily 7 December 2021, and Nature Communications 7 December 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26897-2.
ED. COM. Congrats folks you have made proper use of the term “adaptive”. Adaptation is the inbuilt ability to cope with changes in the environment, and the real history of the world tells us salmon have done this in the past and are doing it again as the environment changes.
After Noah’s Flood the surface of the earth was completely changed and new land masses, complete with new rivers, were formed. Salmon responding to an inbuilt need to spawn in freshwater found these rivers and colonised them. Most salmon return to their river of origin, but as new rivers formed as a result of earth movements and changing rainfall patterns, salmon and other living things found them and colonised them. The ice age would have devastated the salmon population as many rivers were turned to uninhabitable glaciers. Glaciers should not be romanticised because they make picturesque landscape paintings and photos. They are destructive and barren masses of ice which devastate the landscape. As this study shows, melting glaciers allow a landscape to come back to life and provide habitat for many living things. Some very large environmental changes have occurred since the world began, and all things currently alive, plant or animal, have coped with them or died out, but none have evolved.
“Climate change” and “melting glaciers” have been used as scare stories over the last couple of decades, but as this study shows, these changes can be for good.’https://mailchi.mp/creationresearch.net/creation-research-news-email-update-15th-december-2021?e=ce21bf0337
How can you tell if a politician is lying? If they have their mouth open. Well, here’s a BIG ONE!
‘In the make-believe world of politics, in which all utilities can be maximized simultaneously, and yes we’re going to keep saying it until everyone goes yeah yeah we get it, you can price fossil fuels out of reach without it hurting anyone. Thus from Australia, and more particularly The Australian, we read that the opposition Labor Party leader finally coughed up a climate plan that “will help to create jobs, cut power bills and reduce emissions.” Specifically “The Opposition Leader has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 if Labor wins the next election” and yet “Electricity prices will fall from the current level by $275 for households by 2025 at the end of our first term if we are successful”. There’s that all-important “if” again.
There is a rule, long familiar to us yet we cannot now lay our hands on the original version, that if enough people of intelligence and good will have looked for something long enough in a great many places and have not found it, the chances are good that it’s not there. Which brings us to the magic plans to make gasoline, natural gas and coal unaffordable without increasing the cost of living, thus saving us all from the climate crisis without any pain.
We do not wish to mock Anthony Albanese any more mercilessly than he deserves, since the Australian Labour leader is just the latest in a long parade of people across the political spectrum who have made vague promises of great things to come, spent a suspiciously long time getting the details together, then come up with something clearly impossible. On the other hand, he deserves as merciless a mocking as the others, and a bit more, because of the question: If they couldn’t, why can you?
Now they may object that they can. As we pointed out last week, when Canada’s federal environment commissioner gave the incumbent Liberals the knuckle-bone shampoo over their consistent failure to accomplish anything meaningful on climate and their fixation on sending words to do the work of deeds, they responded by saying yes, thank you, we are great. But here’s the mystery.
If they are, if their plan really is working, why didn’t the Australian Labour Party copy it? Why is everyone reinventing the wheel? You may recall that Naomi Oreskes raised eyebrows by saying, from the heart of the alarmist camp, that if the science is settled we should stop studying it and do what we know we should. And that we said she had a point.
If the science isn’t settled, stop saying it is. If the policy isn’t obvious, stop saying it is. And if it is settled on the one hand, and obvious on the other, stop prattling, delaying and promising and get to it.
Of course Albanese can’t do it unless and until his party wins power. Fair enough. But if you look at the climate policies of every nation from Britain to Germany to China to Japan to Ghana to Brazil to Saudi Arabia to Malaysia, and go around the globe again adding France and Thailand and Tunisia and Iceland and Eswatini, only two things can happen.
One is that you discover that a fair number of them found a plan that delivers painless gain so you should just copy it. And the other is that nobody did and there isn’t one.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/12/08/magic-from-down-under/
‘To figure out what’s really going on with wealthy green elites like Prince Charles who want a “vast military-style campaign” to “radically transform” the global economy towards a net zero future – just follow the money.
As reported by the Express Newspaper, former Member of European Parliament and successful businessman Lance Forman believes Prince Charles has a £2 billion motive to be pushing renewable energy.
Given the Queen owns the British coastline, Forman concludes “the Royal Family will gain over £2 billion in the next ten years from renting coastal seabeds to wind-farm operators”.
“Nothing wrong with that – but people should be aware that whilst Charles is so keen on renewables there’s also a huge financial gain for him. Transparency please,” Forman said.
The Royal Family have already closed several deals in the space with many more to come.
It emerged in February that the Queen and the Treasury could receive an offshore wind farm windfall of up to £9 billion over the next ten years, as an auction of seabed plots attracted runaway bids from energy companies.
While the Queen has owned the British coastline since the existence of the Monarchy, the right to collect royalties from wind and wave power was only granted in 2004, under Tony Blair’s Labour government. Since gaining these new rights, the Crown Estate, which manages the Queen’s property portfolio, has sold sites in six areas in England and Wales to energy companies.
The Royal Family has even been dubbed “greedy” as it went on to lease an area off the Yorkshire coast to the latest phase of the giant Hornsea offshore wind farm at the same time as to a scheme led by BP that plans to begin storing carbon dioxide under the seabed.
An industry source involved in one of the schemes told The Guardian: “Put simply, the Crown Estate has been a bit greedy and leased one area to two projects at the same time.”
The money trail certainly doesn’t stop there.
According to the Independent newspaper, Prince Charles “lobbied for climate policy change without disclosing offshore financial interest”.
In 2007, the Prince of Wales reportedly bought shares worth $113,500 (£83,600), in a Bermuda-based company run by one of his best friends, Hugh van Cutsem. That friend was also a director of Sustainable Forestry Management, the board of which invested in land to protect it from deforestation.
The purchase of the shares was regarded as highly sensitive, The Guardian reports, and members of Sustainable Forestry Management’s board were reportedly sworn to secrecy about the Prince’s involvement.’https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/prince_charles_has_a_2_billion_motive_to_push_renewable_energy
Now, more than ‘Two weeks ago, Energy Minister Angus Taylor announced he’ll subsidise our coal-fired power plants to offset the unreliability of our already subsidised wind turbines and solar panels – a policy “worthy of a Yes Minister show or Monty Python skit” as described by the National Civic Council.
Now, Minister Taylor has knocked back an Australian nuclear energy industry in favour of hydrogen fuel because “hydrogen can do things that nuclear could never do anyway. It’s not only a source of energy, it’s a feedstock”.
We’ll listen to the experts on this one, mate.
As one of Australia’s most renowned geologists Professor Ian Plimer said a few months ago:
“Here they come again for your money. Firstly, it was wind, then it was solar. Now they’ve put the two together and it’s hydrogen. And what they’re trying to do is to skin us alive forever.
“Let me say a few things for an illiterate politician. You need electricity to make hydrogen and you have losses when you do that. And then with the hydrogen, you need to make electricity, again you have losses. And so, you get about 30% of the energy by that process, the rest gets dispersed. Unless legislation can change the laws of thermodynamics, you are in a loss, loss, loss situation. Loss because we taxpayers get skinned alive, loss because we redistribute energy and loss because we cannot replace that energy.
“This madness was tried a hundred years ago. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. Now, if we look at planet earth from space, we can see a number of really interesting things. Firstly, if you squint and look very hard, you actually can’t see that the planet’s got a gender. Yet we call the planet a female. Her. The second thing is when you look and you’ve got spectroscopic eyes, you’ll actually see hydrogen is leaking out of the planet. You cannot hold hydrogen, it leaks from the core of the earth through the mantle, through the crust and into space. You cannot hold hydrogen in pipelines or in steel containers.”
“So, if you were to make hydrogen, you will lose a huge amount of energy doing it. Then you’ve got to compress it to only 700 times atmospheric pressure, and that requires a huge amount of energy. Then you’ve got to liquefy it down to minus 283 degrees Celsius. That requires a huge amount of energy. And then you’ve got to transport this hydrogen in a truck or a pipeline, and that is a mobile bomb. That hydrogen will leak out through the steel in pipelines or in a truck, just the same as it leaks out from the earth. That hydrogen weakens the steel and so what have you got? You have got a bomb waiting to go off. Hydrogen is well-known to be extremely explosive. And when it explodes, it puts the most powerful greenhouse gas back into the atmosphere. And that gas is water vapour.
“Yes, you can store hydrogen in fuel cells, incredibly expensive and incredibly dangerous. We have extremely good technology now where we can convert fossilised sunlight into energy. And that fossilised sunlight is called coal. We have extremely good technology to convert compressed energy in a big atom, like uranium into steam, which then goes into electricity. That’s been around for a long time. We’ve had hydrogen around for a long time, it still hasn’t worked. So, if you have massive subsidies and you have people that live in cities, then hydrogen is used by woke people. I’d much rather be living next door to a nuclear reactor than a hydrogen refuelling station. It’s far safer.
“The spruikers (of hydrogen) can see something that’s going to make them a lot of money. Firstly, it’s subsidised. Secondly, they’ve signed really long contracts, which they did for wind and solar. And thirdly, they know that politicians are absolutely totally scientifically illiterate. They know the bureaucrats are generally green and that they’ve barrows to push and are unelected and sending us broke and don’t have to worry about losing a job because they’ve got one forever. So they can see a big fish…This has got nothing to do with green energy. This has got nothing to do with the environment, it’s to do with the spruikers skinning us alive. They’ve done it with wind, they’ve done it with solar, and now they’re doing it again. And my view on this is: beware of people trying to sell us what they call new technology and saying ‘all of the old technology is hopeless.’”
“If we were to throw out old technology, we wouldn’t use the wheel. The best technology we’ve got for generating energy is where we use compressed energy in coal or in a heavy atom like uranium and convert that into steam, which then drives turbines, which then gives us electricity. That for more than a 100 years has been the most efficient form of energy, it still is. If we had no subsidies, we would be still running on coal, uranium and in peak times gas.
“Well, it’s even worse than that. We have our wind turbines made in China. We have our solar panels made in China. And by us having wind and solar electricity is sending us broke. So China doesn’t even need to invade us, we’re doing it to ourselves. Then if we have hydrogen, we do it again to ourselves. And by not using this concentrated energy in black coal and in uranium, we are again sending ourselves broke. We cannot, in a country where wages are high, where our industrial legislation makes it very difficult to do anything, where we have huge amounts of concentrated energy which we export.
“We cannot ignore using that energy. We are the only G20 country that doesn’t generate nuclear electricity. We could control the world’s uranium. The same as Saudi used to control oil. And that is: mine it. Make the yellow cake, make fuel rods, which we lease out, bring them back, clean them up, lease them out again, bring them back, clean them up.
“And then, we set up a high specialty industry whereby we employ engineers, scientists and very skilled tradespeople to run this industry. We don’t, therefore, try to compete with manufacturing industries in Asia, where people get paid $2 a day. We have a highly specialised industry. We are poised to do it. All it requires is regulatory and legislative changes; governments to sit back, get out of the way, get rid of the red tape and the green tape and just let business do what it’s good at. And that is helping build employment, helping build industry without government subsidies.
“That 20 megawatt reactor at Lucas Heights saves lives. Now, anyone who’s ever had cancer would have radionuclides generated from that reactor. You cannot object to nuclear energy if you’ve had cancer treatment, it’s just not possible to do it. That reactor was built in the bush. Now there’s a suburbia around it. It had to be built close to an airport so we can get these medical isotopes to nearby countries and to Western Australia and elsewhere in Australia.
“That reactor is extraordinarily safe. We already have the people and the technology to run reactors. So, if you want to object to nuclear energy, you have to say: “I am never, ever, ever going to accept treatment in a hospital for my cancer.” If you want green power, then if you are on a life support machine, that machine should be turned off when there’s green power coming down the line. And if there’s coal coming down the line, turn it back on again. That is the hypocrisy that we see from these Greens sitting in cities, trying to finger-wag at us and tell us how to live our lives, or how much meat to eat or what gender our pet budgerigar should be.”‘https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/first_it_was_wind_then_it_was_solar
These people are elected officials in the Australian state government of New South Wales. Now, I am not saying they are telling porkies (lies) on purpose but what I am saying is that what they are telling us concerning these so-called renewables is not the total truth! The bald guy is the treasurer and energy minister for the state, Matt Kean or (Green) as some call him. He is a Greenie in the Liberal Party (which is supposed to be the conservatives) and should be ousted at the next election or the lights will literally and completely go out. Here’s why; ‘Australia’s first ever Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), the Central-West Orana REZ, has been declared.
Energy Minister Matt Kean said this is a great win for the Central West as the REZ will help drought-proof traditional farming communities, as well as provide new income streams for landholders that host electricity infrastructure.
“NSW is driving the nation’s action on climate change, by securing our economic and environmental prosperity for decades to come,” Mr Kean said.
“Once complete this REZ will provide at least 3,000 megawatts of cheap, reliable electricity, enough to power 1.4 million homes. It will also drive $5.2 billion in private investment into the Central West by 2030, supporting around 3,900 construction jobs.
“In NSW, we not only have targets and plans, we also have nation-leading legislation that will deliver on our commitment to halve emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.”
“REZs are modern day power stations which bring together low-cost solar and wind generation with transmission and storage to produce cheap, clean and reliable electricity.”’https://dugaldsaunders.com.au/australias-first-renewable-energy-zone-declared/#comment-780
The truth is that anyway you look at it there’s NOTHING low cost or reliable with solar or wind energy. Both depend on the weather. Solar only works when the sun is shining and if there are clouds then not so good. Wind, well, it doesn’t take a climate specialist to know when they work. In fact, go to any energy provider and see how much cheaper these forms of energy are. For example:
“At Origin, with GreenPower, we offer our customers the option to make their energy plan green by choosing to pay a little bit extra to support the purchase of renewable energy.
You can choose to offset the equivalent of 25%, 50% or 100% of your electricity consumption from the electricity grid against renewable generation from sources such as solar, wind and hydro.
Green Gas costs adds just $1 a week to your bill,and with that contribution, we’ll offset 100% of your green gas emissions.”https://www.originenergy.com.au/electricity-gas/green/
So, to save the earth it’s only going to cost the customer $1 a week! I thought it was cheaper to save the planet with renewables?
This climate change madness is just today’s way of shaking one’s fist in the face of God! You see way back in time God said in 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.
Oh, this verse also comes to mind when I think of these climate scammers; Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh…