Something Is Rotten

 In The State Of Denmark

Real Global Warming Produced By The Wrath Of God

The Earth Will Produce Plentifully Until The Tribulation

And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound. Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err (Isaiah 30:25-28).

Something Is Rotten In The State Of Denmark

"Strangely, the majority of the people who propose raising taxes to discourage carbon output are many of the same people who insist that raising corporate taxes won't discourage business growth."

Dec 6, 2009

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

By Danny Hershtal

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259831475145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Question: Which of the following will be completely frozen this week?

   a. Building in Judea and Samaria.

   b. Carbon emissions.

   c. Temperatures in Copenhagen.

     The answer, of course, is: d. The debate over climate change data.

     As many of you surely know, this week the UN will hold a massive conference on climate change, for which the world's leaders and environmental jet-setters will all fly to Copenhagen on their chartered airplanes to decide what punitive taxes to impose on commercial airlines, for those of us who cannot avail ourselves of taxpayer-funded chartered airplanes.

     The basis for taxing and restricting air travel and other carbon and carbon dioxide output activities (breathing?) is the anthropogenic global warming theory or AGW. AGW theory claims that the Earth's surface and ocean temperatures are steadily rising and that this rise has been caused by the increase in man-made carbon pollution since the onset of the industrial revolution. It should be noted that even the maximalist proponents of the theory only attribute a 0.75 degree temperature rise over the 20th century and only a portion of this is anthropogenic - man caused.

     However, in 1988, the UN empanelled the International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, to address the issues of AGW and make recommendations. Since then, the IPCC has released four key assessment reports. Interestingly the term "climate change" was adopted by the IPCC so as to remain neutral about the global warming. However, the first assessment report was said to have "settled the science" and proven AGW to be true. It was a good thing, too, because, as if on heavenly cue, surface temperatures immediately began to cool. The current decade has been significantly cooler than its two predecessors. The "settled science" came into question.

     In 2005, hurricane expert Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC before the fourth assessment report was released. He viewed the process "as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound." A large amount of environmental climate research has been conducted at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Last month, someone hacked into its e-mail accounts and posted a number of them on-line at http://www.eastangliaemails.com.

     The running thread through these e-mails was that the CRU scientists knowingly contorted data, violated IPCC standards, suppressed skeptics and manipulated the peer review process. The scientists who wrote the e-mails confirmed that they were factual but disputed the interpretation. For instance they say that using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures is not a deception but a proven scientific technique. They were more hard-pressed to explain why they would rather delete hard research data than allow it to be reviewed by other scientists, especially when they were asked by the media to produce the raw data and admitted that it had been deleted. I encourage everyone to use the search tool on the Web site to skim through as many e-mails as possible. Scientists not directly related to the CRU work could not deny that the CRU had been fudging some results and suppressing others.

     However, environmentalists like Dan Esty have justified the misdoings by stating that by massaging the data, the scientists helped the average person understand the problem, without exposing us to piddling, annoying contradictory facts. IN ALL seriousness, the e-mails, while damaging, do not debunk AGW. However, they do require returning to scientific principles and reopening debate to truly determine whether or not carbon emissions have a significant detrimental effect on the planet.

     However, even as the CRU e-mails have moved from the blogosphere into mainstream news, world leaders and delegations to the Copenhagen conference have refused to reopen the discussion. The only topic on the agenda will be which extreme measures can all governments agree upon to punish their citizens for releasing carbon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Strangely, the majority of the people who propose raising taxes to discourage carbon output are many of the same people who insist that raising corporate taxes won't discourage business growth.

     I am an environmentalist. I believe that we should maintain a clean society and that local governments have a responsibility to dispose of waste in a sanitary and responsible way. I also appreciate the preservation of green spaces and conservation of natural resources. But I also appreciate the quality of life that progressive industry and technology have provided us. Before our society is forced to curtail its progress and the conveniences, such as air travel, which facilitate business, investment and leisure, we must have an open and honest debate on the veracity of AGW and evaluate the risk/benefit ratio before taking drastic steps.

     Israel already has a reputation as a contrarian state in the UN. If Environment Minister Gilad Erdan were to call for a cautious reevaluation with fair and open debate, based on raw data available to all parties, it would only be to Israel's and the world's benefit. In Hamlet, Shakespeare wrote: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." The solution to the problem appears in the same play: "This above all, to thine own self be true."

The Church Of Global Warming

Dec. 05, 2009

The Church of Global Warming
By Patrice Lewis

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117968

      I'm sure you've all heard about the scandal coming out of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, in which some bozos cooked the raw data on temperatures from around the world when those data didn't reflect their global-warming agenda.

     These guys apparently weren't hamstrung by the Scientific Method, which has the audacity to suggest that the process of establishing a theory (such as global warming) be "objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called 'full disclosure,' also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

     Unencumbered by such quaint scientific protocol, these guys knew the raw data they obtained were an inconvenient truth, so they "lost" them. These "scientists" were determined to prove global warming by faith alone, not by any credible methodology or empirical evidence.

     To those of us who have long been skeptical about man's influence on global temperatures, the timing of these leaked e-mails just ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit couldn't be better. But wait, something's wrong. The damning evidence hasn't raised a peep of alarm from the global-warming cultists. Professor Trevor Davies of the East Anglia CRU called the hacked e-mails "the latest example of a campaign intended 'to distract from reasoned debate' about global climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit."

     Reasoned debate. Ha ha, that's a good one. It's well-documented that any scientist who argues against global warming is ridiculed and discredited. Global warming has gone beyond the realm of science into the mysticism of religion. It can only be believed on faith, not facts. No one dares question the Church of Global Warming. Reasoned debate has no place in climate change discussions for the simple reason that its believers aren't scientists – they're religious converts who think altering the data and silencing critics is fine if it advances the cause.

     The Church of Global Warming's goal is to pass laws that will make your life miserable. This church wants you to be fined and/or jailed if you don't obey its precepts to live as the High Priests have determined you should live. Conveniently, these High Priests are exempt from similar restrictions and can still live lavish consumerist lifestyles (Al Gore, anyone?) while preaching the gospel of poverty to save Gaia.

     Just like a true religion, the Church of Global Warming has its (ahem) "Sunday" school. But this isn't a one-hour class once a week. It's seven hours a day of compulsory indoctrination (otherwise known as public schools) where little kids are brainwashed into believing humans are a blot on the planet. They learn to sing catchy ditties that "scold …selfish adults (that would be us) for polluting our planet and causing a warming scourge that would, in no short order, kill all the polar bears and threaten the birds and bees."

     Skeptics have long snarked that Christian beliefs can't be backed by anything concrete and must be accepted purely on faith. For those who are members of the Church of Global Warming, these accusations start to ring hollow when "scientists" use "tricks" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in ways that get reeeeaally close to being an outright hoax. So whose religion is based on faith?

     But none of this makes a difference to the cultists who want to force their doctrine on us at the point of a legislative gun, forcing us to swallow the communion wafer of cap-and-trade. And that gun will get a whole lot bigger if Obama signs a treaty at the Copenhagen summit that kicks aside our sovereign rights and puts us under the brass knuckles of the U.N.

     Unlike Christianity (which offers salvation in the afterlife), the Church of Global Warming demands "salvation" in the here-and-now at the expense of the future. (The future of humans, that is. Gaia is a different matter.) It requires us to pare back our lifestyles to approximately that of cave dwellers in order to conform to their belief that the earth is doomed because of humans.

     The Church of Global Warming has all sorts of doctrines to which its followers adhere. This includes spreading the wealth, social welfare at the point of a gun, restricting private gun ownership, global governance, enforcing limits to population growth (spooky idea) and other cheery concepts. Every one of these doctrines is antithetical to individual freedoms because freedom is the last thing the Church of Global Warming wants. The church cannot limit itself to voluntary participation because there are too many well-educated nonbelievers. It feels it must pass astonishingly restrictive laws to force nonmembers to adhere to its tenets. It doesn't matter if millions protest at tea parties. This church is like the Borg from Star Trek: You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

     As with other false churches, we need to follow the money to understand the Church of Global Warming's agenda. Hmmm – could it be that those who squawk the loudest about rising temps stand to gain the most from legislation that would fight these temps? Could it be these cultists really don't care a fig for the environment but simply seek power over the rest of us? Could it be they want to control every aspect of our lives, from what light bulbs we use to whether we compost our banana peels? (see Comprehensive Plan To Put The United States Under U.N. Global Governance, Marching Towards The Reign Of The Anti-Christ, N. American Army Created Without OK By Congress, Obama's Sovereignty Giveaway Plan)

And there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound. Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire: And his breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the neck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, causing them to err (Isaiah 30:25-28).