Echoes in Eternity

Now to answer the questions more specifically. Hopefully one will be able to tell, but I have no animosity toward any person who may believe that man-made global warming is a big problem; my disdain is directed entirely at the politicians and scientists who are (mis)leading the hysterical global warming charge. I welcome any evidence that contradicts my opinion, I just have yet to find any. If one is to read my past blog entries regarding global warming (GW) AND their accompanying links, he or she should find a pretty solid answer to most of these questions. However, to bring everything together in a more succinct manner, I will address the questions here. Also, if anyone wants to know the sources of the data that I quote but don't link to, please ask. Additionally, let me reiterate something I have said before: I agree that GW is happening to some extent, though not entirely globally. I just feel the evidence appears to indicate that the amount of causation due to humans is very low or non-existent and that even if humans have caused some GW in the past, nothing we do can really make a difference to affect future global temperatures.
--------------------------
Q1.) What evidence would convince me that global warming is real and caused by humanity?

Answer: If it were solid, scientific evidence (rather than the tripe currently trotted out as "undeniable" fact), I would much more seriously consider it. However, when Al Gore claims that the oceans will be 20 feet higher by the end of the century while almost ALL the scientists, even those who are prominently pushing the theory of human-induced GW (i.e. U.N.-paid lackeys), are saying that AT MOST the seas will rise a mere 2-3 inches in the next 100 years, one wonders if someone might just be "warm-mongering" for political gain. Since when did science disavow skepticism as a primary characteristic? If the science is so solid, why are doubting scientists being fired and de-funded for speaking their minds? Science used to embrace debate and skepticism. Also, it would help to convince me if they didn't completely ignore other OBVIOUS and documented likelihoods, such as that the earth has been cyclically warming up and cooling down since it was formed many years back and is just currently in a warming period.
------------------------
Q2.) I don't seem to care to base my beliefs on much science, so what would convince me that climatologists and the like are sincerely concluding that GW is occurring and that humans are the cause; instead of just being a group of weather Nazis (in so many words)?

Answer: Ignoring the fact that sincerity has no effect on veracity, the answer lies in the question. That scientists are CONCLUDING beyond any apparent doubt that GW is caused by humans confirms that they have left science and the scientific method (at least as I know it) far behind. Statistics and correlations do NOT prove cause and effect. Unfortunately, we see this happening all the time in other areas of science. First we hear that it's unhealthy to be fat, then we learn that fat people might actually live longer. For example, say I walk down the street and come across a man incessantly clapping his hands as loud as he can. I ask him why he is doing that and he says that the sound keeps the tigers away. I tell him that there aren't any tigers nearby; to which he replies "see, it's working!" That is basically what is happening here. Scientists are measuring higher carbon dioxide levels and concluding that humans are the cause. The scientific method is as follows:

1. Observation
2. Hypotheses/Explanations
3. Predictions
4. Experimentation/Testing (Falsifiability)

Human-induced GW does not fit that at all. Sure, we've observed some higher temps, and yep, we've noticed some higher levels of gas in the air. So we would then hypothesize that one might be causing the other, but not certain which one (since there is reason to believe either way). But even if we decide to guess that the latter causes the former, we still have no idea what causes the gas. So then we would further hypothesize that humans could be causing it OR, as is more likely, there are some other natural reasons for the uptick in carbon dioxide. But we'll go with humans for this argument's sake. Next, we need to predict and then test our predictions to prove or disprove them. Uh oh, Houston, we have a problem. To scientifically test something, you need a closed, controlled environment. Last time I checked, the atmosphere and related stuff such as the earth and space are about as open and uncontrolled of an environment possible. Oh well, we'll ignore that last step and just call humanity-induced global warming "verified fact."
-------------------
Q3.) What solutions does Al Gore advocate that would "kill millions of people?" Most practical actions to curtail global climate change are actions you could take for a variety of other reasons, such as reducing your energy bill, increasing US energy security, and reducing the presence of smog in America's major cities.

Answer: The main solutions Mr. Gore has proposed could severely hurt the developed world's economies, thus seriously hindering those countries' ability to care for the undeveloped world (i.e. Africa, South America, Hollywood). Also, reducing our energy bills and reducing smog only helps ourselves and our pocketbooks, it doesn't make an iota of difference to the environment. Had the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty on GW, been 100% ratified, and all the countries actually complied, global temperatures would have lowered by .07 degrees Celsius by 2050. That's right, it would have had no statistically significant effect. Meanwhile, the United States GDP would have been cut by 20% by 2010. In other words, ruin the economy, don't change a thing. So if the large-scale emission changes called out by the Kyoto Protocol for every developed country can't make a difference, how exactly does it matter if I (or ten million Americans for that matter) switch in more energy efficient light bulbs?
--------------
Q4.) Finally, why do I accept science's projections of future populations in Russia and Saudi Arabia but not the IPCC projects of future global average temperature?

Answer: I'm not sure where to start, since it's like comparing apples and oranges. Population projections are nearly impossible to screw up, at least once you have data such as past growth, current birth rate, current death rate, immigration rate, etc. There are only so many factors that can be considered. Obviously, a population could see an increase in immigration or a renewed love of babies, but history tells us that, at least with the latter, once a country is in the population death spin, it never pulls out. I will grant, though, that the projections for Saudi Arabia are likely a little on the high side; since their birth rates are likely to come down over time. As for future global temp projections, one only needs to review my links to Drs. Lindzen and Gray in my last post to see the fickleness of such efforts.
--------------

OK, well, I'm sure I missed something and likely made generalizations for brevity's sake (if you can call a 1500-word post "brief"). As for tying this back to my Christian beliefs and worldview, I will admit that, science aside, I am usually quite skeptical of anything anyone claims as truth; either about this world or the next. I try to "test everything and hold onto the good." More specifically, I fail to see how worrying about how warm a piece of ice in the Arctic has gotten or running out to buy a hybrid vehicle furthers the kingdom of God or brings even one person closer to finding eternal life. I neglect His kingdom enough as it is, why throw another distraction in my way? Furthermore, did Jesus not say

Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Any questions, random thoughts, or snide remarks, feel free to place them in the comment section below this post.

A reader recently posted the following comment regarding my views on global warming (GW).

As the article on global cooling reminds us, scientists are fallible human beings, but so are Dr. James Dobson and Chuck Colson. As earlier comments have correctly stated, scientists have "more scientific evidence and more sophisticated instruments to gather that evidence than there was years ago," and the cooling article does not "prove global warming wrong."

I am a follower of Christ, a physicist, and a friend of Darius' brother Jonathan. I am not a socialist; I do not advocate communism; I am not attempting to "destroy the world's economy," and I certainly do not consider Al Gore a "great prophet." Having said that, I wish to pose a few questions.

What evidence would be necessary to convince you that rather than being an imaginary product of "junk" science and a "current fad," global climate change is real and being caused by human activity?

Your previous posts have revealed that your real disdain is not primarily based on the science, which leads to my next question. What would be necessary to convince you that climatologists and atmospheric scientists are sincere in their conclusions about global climate change, as summarized in the IPCC reports, rather than being a group of Gaia worshiping, hysterical, "who's who of moral idiots" who are "false Christs and false prophets" deceiving Christians "by a worldly philosophy" in order to destroy the "wicked capitalist Anglo-American man."

What solutions does Al Gore advocate that would "kill millions of people?" As far as I know, most practical actions to curtail global climate change are actions you could take for a variety of other reasons, such as reducing your energy bill, increasing US energy security, and reducing the presence of smog in America's major cities.

Finally, why do you accept science's projections of future populations in Russia and Saudi Arabia but not the IPCC projects of future global average temperature?

First of all, before reading the rest of this post, review my previous posts about GW. I feel it's probably necessary that I expound on some of the details for my previously stated beliefs and explain that they are not based solely on my worldview or my opinions of the global warm-mongers, but that I do actually have solid scientific backing (or at least can show how weak the GW proponents' evidence is). I am not a scientist, nor would I ever claim to be, having studied limited amounts of most scientific subjects while majoring in mechanical engineering. However, I have read up some on the subject of GW and found some real experts in the field who have more fully explained the faults in the GW hysteria. For the basics, read the past Mark Steyn columns which have been linked to in some of my GW posts. However, since Mark Steyn is not a scientist, I feel it is necessary to reference some atmospheric scientists and climatologists.

The first is Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He's spoken and written extensively on the issue. It is his belief (along with many other scientists in the field) that while global temps have gone up about .5 deg. Celsius in the last 100 years, there is no clear evidence that carbon dioxide is the cause. Dr. Lindzen wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal last summer which summarized his feelings on the matter quite well.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Secondly, I refer you to Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and the PREMIER hurricane forecaster in the world. He believes that the earth will actually start COOLING in the next 5-10 years as it gets to the end of this current warming cycle. Here is an article about Dr. Gray and his GW skepticism. It's a bit lengthy, so be prepared. I will make another post soon directly addressing the comments above.

Today is opening day of the 132nd season of professional baseball. That's right, the summer that General Custer was getting himself cut to shreds at Little Bighorn the Chicago Cubs were fielding grounders and stealing bases for the first time (in 1876, the Cubs were called the Chicago White Stockings). The game of professional baseball has transformed from that initial 8-team league to the now 30-team combined National and American leagues. While such stars as Albert Spalding (who later founded the Spalding sporting goods store) made a mere $40 a week back then ($700 a week by today's standards), today's baseball stars make close to a million dollars per week. Likewise, the founding players used bare hands to field while today's players spend $300 for a good leather glove. While much of the nation's pastime may have changed, the theme song has been the same for nearly 100 years. Take Me Out to the Ballgame is profiled this week by Mark Steyn in his ongoing "Song of the Week" series.

Today, 99 years after he wrote it, “Take Me Out To The Ball Game” is the third most performed song in the country, after “Happy Birthday” and the national anthem. It’s part of the soundtrack of America. And, as Sinatra put it on that long ago radio show, "as long as our national pastime is played by free men in a free land", we’ll be singing Jack Norworth’s words to Albert Von Tilzer’s tune – one, two, three strikes, over and over and over, but never out.

Well, as usual the United Nations are stuck attempting to determine the correct verb to use in another of their meaningless "statements." If it weren't so deadly to those in Darfur and elsewhere, it would be quite comical. In this case, the UN couldn't bring themselves to "deplore" Iran's recent kidnapping of British troops, but they did express "grave concern." What a bunch of pompous fools. Not only do they spend hours negotiating a STATEMENT, they also are so arrogant as to assume that whatever silly verb they use will actually make a smidgeon of a difference to Iran.

What they should do is what Newt recommended the other day.

I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

I've added two more links to the left. Blackfive is a blog written by a ex-military officer who has many ties to the current conflicts in the Middle East. Basically, he tells the stories that the media won't tell you. The "Someone You Should Know" link is a sub-blog of Blackfive and tells stories of honorable people who are making sacrifices over there. Here is a sample. And the couple's wedding photo. Meanwhile, we have a Democrat-controlled and Republican-enabled Congress stabbing these brave soldiers in the back with a retreat strategy before they've even been given a chance to succeed.

We don't fight for oil, or Halliburton contracts, or hatred. We fight for this:























And this:

Regarding the problem northern Eurasia is having keeping babies alive either after they are born or in utero, here is a short snippet of an article from a couple years ago that I stumbled across today.

"The number of women who have abortions in Russia annually greatly exceeds the corresponding figures in Western European countries," [Vladimir Kulakov, deputy director of the Russian Women’s Health Center] said. "The quality of abortions performed is often very low and the women’s health is often at risk, with 30 percent of them dying," he added.

“There are more than 6.5 million infertile women in Russia today,” RIA Novosti quoted Kulakov as saying. “15 percent of Russian couples are facing the problem of infertility.”

6.5 million infertile women?!?! That's 1 in 10! A 30% death rate of women who have abortions? So not only are they killing off the next generation, they're killing off their own generation as well.

Here is a graph of what Russia's population is projected at for the next 50 years. Most of Europe isn't much better.


Meanwhile, this is what Saudi Arabia's population (and most predominantly Muslim countries) is doing:


















I wonder who will be making the rules in Eurasia by mid-century...

The title of this post comes from the slogan for a campaign in Germany to persuade new mothers to place their unwanted babies in hospital "baby hatches" rather than killing them or leaving them to die somewhere. Unfortunately, this has become necessary since there have been more than 20 newborn babies murdered this year in Germany by mothers who didn't want them and didn't care enough to put them up for adoption. Here is the article.

Desperate mothers are being urged to drop their unwanted babies through hatches at hospitals in an effort to halt a spate of infanticides that has shocked Germany.

At least 23 babies have been killed so far this year, many of them beaten to death or strangled by their mothers before being dumped on wasteland and in dustbins.
...
Experts believe that the true figure is even higher. Professor Helmut Kury, a criminologist, say: “Some women have a greater fear of losing their partners than of losing their child. They take desperate measures to save a relationship.”
...
But the baby-drops, modelled on foundling wheels that were first used in Italy in medieval times, are not the final antidote to these killings. “Often the mother is under such psychological pressure that she doesn’t even register alternatives like the Baby-Klappe,” Dr Neises said.

But they do offer an alternative for some mothers. The drop-off point is usually hidden from view, shielded by trees and away from security cameras. The baby is put on to a tray that slides through a hole in the wall and is gently lowered into a heated cot. An alarm bell alerts nursing staff — but only after the mother has been given sufficient time to make a getaway. The baby can be reclaimed, usually up to three months later, should the mother change her mind.
...
Initial scepticism started to melt after a woman in eastern German was arrested for letting nine of her babies die. Some were buried in plant pots in her garden.

Germany already has one of the lowest birth rates in Europe and is having its population every 40-50 years. And those that are having babies don't appear to keen on keeping them.

Two thoughts come to mind from this story. One, the argument that legalized abortion and contraception eliminates or significantly reduces the number of "unwanted" babies appears to be proven wrong by this situation. Germany already aborts nearly 1 in 5 of their babies, and 30% of German women are childless as is, with all sorts of contraceptives available. Yet, INCREASINGLY mothers are killing their babies post-birth. Second, if most of these women are killing their babies so that their BOYFRIENDS don't leave them, it would appear that the complete disregard for marriage in Europe has reaped the whirlwind. We are living in evil times when mothers throughout the world can throttle their infant children to death for no reason other than motherhood makes them uncomfortable. I leave you with a graph. One hint, it's not the percent of pregnancies taken to term. Communism appears to haunt Eastern Europe to this day.

Here is an article from Newsweek from 1975 describing the "almost unanimous" scientific opinion that global COOLING was going to cause worldwide famines and a minor ice age.

They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

That sounds so familiar.

Here is a thought-inspiring post I found on another person's blog. It makes one think.

There are no curses strong enough to properly convey what I feel toward people capable of this. King David perhaps said it best in Psalm 11:5-6.

The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked and those who love violence
his soul hates.

On the wicked he will rain
fiery coals and burning sulfur;
a scorching wind will be their lot.

This is actually the only place I have found where the Bible indicates that God can hate people. We're taught that God hates sin but loves the sinner. But here, for those who love violence, He hates them within His soul. I do not want to be nearby when God pours out His wrath on the terrorists in Iraq who killed those children.

As you already know by my past posts here and here regarding "global warming," I am not loath to express my disdain for this current fad. In that vein, Mark Steyn has written another great column this week; once again taking the "climate change" craze and tearing it asunder.

The aphorism usually attributed to Chesterton seems pertinent here: once man has ceased to believe in God, he'll believe in anything. Most of the post-Christian West seems to have decided that, if the here and now is all there is, then we have to keep the here and now right here and exactly as it is now for all time. Environmentalism is, in that sense, the apotheosis of our present-tense culture. It is, of course, anti-nature. Far from "honouring your mother" (as the Gaia bumper stickers commend), it explicitly dishonours her: it assumes she is not a living evolving entity but exists in a fixed state whose condition is determined by man--or, at any rate, wicked capitalist Anglo-American man.

Here is an enjoyable little obituary written by (who else?) Mark Steyn. Enjoy!

What with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Islam, there’s been a huge proliferation of Stans in the news. There’s Tajiks and Uzbeks, a Nuristan and a Nurestan, there’s a Baluchistan and a Balochistan and probably a Biloxistan, there are Kremlin-pressured Stans (Bashkortistan) and vowel-challenged Stans (Kyrgyzstan) and Stans that sound vaguely like some big Corporate-Mergerstan (Karakalpakstan). There’s Waziristan, where Osama bin Laden is said to be holed up like a Muslim Pimpernel: they seek him in Waziristan, they seek him in Overtheristan.

So, in a world of Stans, with every Nickelandimistan clamoring for attention, how do you make yours Stan out from the crowd? This was the challenge faced by an obscure Communist apparatchik called Saparmurat Niyazov in 1991 when his Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic suddenly found itself pushed out onto the world stage as the newly independent nation of Turkmenistan. In Soviet Central Asia, Turkmenistan was pretty much the end of the line Stan-wise. You flew in from Baku across the Caspian Sea in Azerbaijan, the Stan that thinks it’s a Jan.

I have placed a Fred Thompson for President logo at the top of this blog. So far, I have not been particularly keen on any of the Republican frontrunners; each for their own reasons. Guiliani doesn't have the convictions to stand behind his newfound conservative social policies, and it's hard to see an admitted adulterer winning the Presidency (at least from the Republican side of the aisle). McCain is a politician first and a conservative second. He's very wishy washy on some key issues and has made some huge errors in judgment in the past in the name of "bi-partisanship"; plus he's really old. Romney has some history of liberal social policies like Guiliani, plus he was elected governor by Massachusetts, which worries me. The rest of the names out there likewise are either worrisome in their conservative credentials or appear likely unelectable come November 2008. Which brings me to Fred Thompson. He is a strong conservative without any past leftist leanings, he's got name recognition from his time as a senator from Tennessee and his current stint as the head District Attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC show Law and Order, he is still heavily involved in politics as he helped aid Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation process and has been a leading advocate for Scooter Libby, and, to my knowledge, has little or no past personal issues.

So here's hoping he says yes to a run for president.

After reading this great piece by Mark Steyn, I suddenly felt like perhaps global warming is one of those issues to which Jesus referred when he said that "false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible." While Al Gore may have not done any miracles (besides resurrecting his political career), he has millions of people considering him a great prophet. While it may seem harmless to believe that global warming needs to be addressed, it is not. The remedy that is now being promoted by Gore and his liberal brethren will destroy the world's economy and kill millions of people if allowed to be fully enacted.

A couple of days before the Oscars, the Reverend Al gave a sell-out performance at the University of Toronto. "From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts of the East Toronto Climate Action Group, who compared the former vice president to Jesus Christ, both men being (as the Globe And Mail put it) "great leaders who stepped forward when called upon by circumstance." Unlike Christ, the Eco-Messiah cannot yet walk on water, but then, neither can the polar bears. However, only Al can survey the melting ice caps and turn water into whine. One lady unable to land a ticket frantically begged the university for an audience with His Goriness. As the National Post reported, "Her daughter hadn't been able to sleep since seeing ''An Inconvenient Truth.'' She claimed that seeing Mr. Gore in person might make her daughter feel better." Well, it worked for Leonardo DiCaprio.

It is scary that people can be so easily fooled. While "climate change" hysteria may die off in a few years, it has shown me how easily people, including Christians, can be taken in by a worldly philosophy. The unsaved have no hope, thus they are terrified of anything and everything. Christians should be ashamed to let themselves fall into such anxiety. After all, "heaven and earth will pass away..."