IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud by Ted Slater on 11/24/2009 at 3:13 PM

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated -- and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

What's reporter Robert Tracinski talking about? He's talking about the recent discovery that significant evidence supporting man-caused global warming is absolutely bogus. Essentially, scientists at the influential Climatic Research Unit made up data and manipulated it to support their agenda-driven and predetermined conclusions.

I've been arguing that this global warming climate change hysteria is more about controlling the masses and making money than about good science, or about caring for the environment.

Turns out I'm right. Here are some recent headlines:

• IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
• Knocking Down the Global Warming "House of Cards"
• Global Warming With the Lid Off
• There has been no increase in CO2 since 1850
• Hiding evidence of global cooling: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
• Climategate: The Fix Is In
• CBS: East Anglia CRU covered up bad data, computer modeling
• Global warming, corruption, and unethical scientists
• Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'
• Global warming is a hoax?
• The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones

As always, I have to reiterate that I affirm conservation. I affirm caring for the earth. I affirm responsible use of resources. I affirm not polluting air and water and ground. Personally, and among other things, I use an electric lawn mower and CFL light bulbs, and use organic methods in my victory garden. It works for me, and may work for you as well.

I also affirm that there's a political agenda (Agenda 21?) behind climate change theology, an agenda that empowers bureaucrats to infringe on our rights and take more of our money, all in the name of compassion for the planet.

So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud by Ted Slater on 11/24/2009 at 3:13 PM

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated -- and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

What's reporter Robert Tracinski talking about? He's talking about the recent discovery that significant evidence supporting man-caused global warming is absolutely bogus. Essentially, scientists at the influential Climatic Research Unit made up data and manipulated it to support their agenda-driven and predetermined conclusions.

I've been arguing that this global warming climate change hysteria is more about controlling the masses and making money than about good science, or about caring for the environment.

Turns out I'm right. Here are some recent headlines:

• IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud
• Knocking Down the Global Warming "House of Cards"
• Global Warming With the Lid Off
• There has been no increase in CO2 since 1850
• Hiding evidence of global cooling: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers
• Climategate: The Fix Is In
• CBS: East Anglia CRU covered up bad data, computer modeling
• Global warming, corruption, and unethical scientists
• Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'
• Global warming is a hoax?
• The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones

As always, I have to reiterate that I affirm conservation. I affirm caring for the earth. I affirm responsible use of resources. I affirm not polluting air and water and ground. Personally, and among other things, I use an electric lawn mower and CFL light bulbs, and use organic methods in my victory garden. It works for me, and may work for you as well.

I also affirm that there's a political agenda (Agenda 21?) behind climate change theology, an agenda that empowers bureaucrats to infringe on our rights and take more of our money, all in the name of compassion for the planet.

So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?

Comments

[1. Sarah P. said the following at 3:21 PM on Nov 24:]

1

Oil prices. What really caused the price of gas to rise so high just before the presidential elections?

[2. Josh said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 24:]

2

Sorry, but there are hundreds (thousands?) of professionals working independently who support the global climate change hypothesis. The kind of conspiracy you are talking about is simply not possible. Whether or not pockets of research are fabricated, there are still thousands of isolated research projects that provide evidence for the same conclusion.

Seriously, it's not like all the scientists in the world huddle together inside their volcano fortresses, plotting to deceive the world and make billions of dollars.

[3. Ted Slater said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 24:]

3

Josh (#2) -- and there are tens of thousands of professionals working independently who oppose the AGW hypothesis.

I'm just stating the facts: The most influential body of global warming scientists has been committing fraud, to promote their political agenda. Their phony research directly influenced the UN's IPCC report. Their house of cards is collapsing, as it should.

I should have affirmed one more thing: integrity and objectivity in science.

[4. Brittanie said the following at 4:11 PM on Nov 24:]

4

Actually, Ted, global warming is a fact.

"...the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" 2 Peter 3:10b

:-)

[5. Beth said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 24:]

5

Can we get back to dating and marriage?

[6. farmer Tom said the following at 4:34 PM on Nov 24:]

6

I've been waiting for this thread, Ted.

So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?

And the answer to the question is,.....

The very same group of people who knowingly and with forethought made up the data for anthropogenic global warming–climate-change, have been making it up in the arena of human origins for the last 150 years.

We have heard the term scientific consensus so often it the last 5 years that we have become numb to its meaning.

Read this quote from Wikipedia, and remember how often we heard that it was scientific consensus that there was anthropogenic global warming. And they made it up.

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.

So the next time some lame brain evolutionist tries to tell you that evolution is a fact because of scientific consensus, mock them, laugh in their face, call them (the Biblical term) a fool, then suggest to them that when the earth actually starts warming you will listen to their opinion about another hoax perpetuated by the scientific community.

And take note of the fact that these people who committed fraud, made every effort to hinder or even stop peer review of their work.

from Jay Currie "The Dirt"

Evidence of an organized subversion of the peer review process

Update: 1089318616.txt

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Cheers
Phil

#1051230500
“Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?”

Evidence of the black listing of a scientific journal for purely political reasons

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Next time some lame brain starts spewing bile about ID because it's "never been published in a peer reviewed journal", just sign their comedy act up for a stint in the local standup joint. They are laughing stocks, they deserve your scorn.

[7. Befuddled said the following at 4:51 PM on Nov 24:]

7

This is all very interesting. Ted, you may be right in your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is bogus, but I'm not sure I understand your belief in this agenda behind global warming.

Scientists are spreading lies in order for the government to take more money from us? This hardly seems legitimate. It feels more like a hatred toward taxes than serious scientific inquiry.

[8. Jim H. said the following at 4:56 PM on Nov 24:]

8

It will be interesting to see how many posters will express their continued determination to be sheep to this ever more obvious scam.

[9. farmer Tom said the following at 5:16 PM on Nov 24:]

9

7. Befuddled said,

Befuddled is definitely a good tag line.

Their goal is not just to take more money from you,(although that is a side benefit), it is to eliminate you. Their desire is to control the world, for the elite. To, as Ted Turner said, eliminate 2/3 of the world population, eliminate Constitutional Representative government and establish a global cabal which controls the natural resources, establishes morality based on the proclivities of those elite, grants favor to the rich and famous, all the while attempting to eliminate the "underclasses", "the useless eaters".

[10. Jethro said the following at 6:03 PM on Nov 24:]

10

But Ted,

The evidence for creationism is inordinately more flimsy than the evidence for climate change and yet you continue to believe in the former. What gives?

[11. Chris said the following at 6:05 PM on Nov 24:]

11

My Fellow ACSBAGMSs,

I regret to inform you that our plans for world domination through global warming theory (plan #4a, if you recall) have failed. For years we have kept an eye on an obscure religious blog editor, thinking him only an annoying voice. It turns out that he's been on to us all this time, and now some new evidence has proven him right. Some may debate the validity of these claims, but the World Organization for Determining Fraudulent Evidence and Ending All Debates Forever has ruled against us.

As you all know, we were very, very close to utterly destroying the sovereignty of the United States. Once the US fell, the UN (under our control, of course) was to take over all government functions, tax all income at 100%, throw all religious believers in jail, and destroy all business...all in the name of "protecting the environment." (Yes, yes, we all get the joke.)

However, rather than let this setback deter and demoralize us, let us use it to steel our resolve. We still have many on going projects that will soon bear fruit, such as:

1) Evolutionary theory. From the beginning, we've seen the ability of this theory to cause a rise in homosexuality, abortion, and murder, and a decline in church attendance. Truly, it is a powerful tool for our secret political agenda.

2) The health care debate. Luckily, we've managed to keep hidden the fact that cancer, heart disease, other "illnesses" do not exist. The few people who actually figured out that the government causes these conditions are considered crackpots.

In an effort to ensure their "health," people are gladly giving over complete and total control of their lives to the government.

(On a side note, we should keep monitoring people who refuse vaccinations out of health concerns. We must not let a large portion of the population go without their yearly mind control injections.)

3) Education: Thanks to the complete and utter removal of the Christian god from public schools in the US, crime and war in the entire world has gone up. Very soon now the sheeply masses will grant governments (controlled by us, of course) total police powers to protect them.

So my fellow Atheist Communist Socialist Baby-Aborting Gay Marriage Supporters (ACSBAGMSs), let us not lose hope. One day the world will be ours.

[12. Lia said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 24:]

12

One group of scientists' internal emails on how to interpret and present data on climate change does not represent an indictment of global warming on the whole.

And really, I'm with Befuddled (7). What do scientists have to gain by falsifying evidence of climate change besides working towards a greener future?

[13. BDB said the following at 7:22 PM on Nov 24:]

13

Lia (#12) wrote:

>>And really, I'm with Befuddled (7). What do scientists have to gain by falsifying evidence of climate change besides working towards a greener future?<<

So far, it looks like lust for power. Power is intoxicating, and corrupting. The U.S. Government was structured specifcally to make sure no faction could easily take control of everything. By spreading out the power - especially with the Senate - it's very very hard for any one group to impose its ideology on any other group.

Make no mistake, those on the far left enjoy a beautiful environment. And they want that no matter the cost. If the cost is wiping out dirty jobs, like coal mining and manufacturing, that's OK with them. Much of the growth in the Asian economies, including China and India, comes from those dirty manufacturing jobs that Americans legislated to make too expensive. That's why the air in Southern California is sooo much cleaner, and the smog in Beijing is now terrible.

So, when those on the Left say that they want to impose environmental and labor regulations on other countries that manufacture products sold in the U.S., let it be perfectly clear in your mind that what they are doing is legislating their morality onto other people groups and cultures.

[14. Michael V said the following at 8:36 PM on Nov 24:]

14

I'm also a little lost on how this big conspiracy to take all our money is supposed to work.

Can we skip all the conspiracy theories and go back to the part where we talk about Christianity?

[15. Ted Slater said the following at 9:14 PM on Nov 24:]

15

Michael V (#14) -- It's not a "conspiracy." It's proposed legislation. Google "Cap and Trade" -- that'll give you an idea how certain bureaucrats/politicians are capitalizing on this global warming alarmism to take more of our hard-earned income.

[16. edwige said the following at 10:40 PM on Nov 24:]

16

# 5 Beth >>Can we get back to dating and marriage?<<

Lol!! I second that!!

[17. Jethro said the following at 10:48 PM on Nov 24:]

17

BDB (#13),

"So, when those on the Left say that they want to impose environmental and labor regulations on other countries that manufacture products sold in the U.S., let it be perfectly clear in your mind that what they are doing is legislating their morality onto other people groups and cultures."

You mean like when Christians legislate their morality and say that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex only?

[18. edwige said the following at 10:55 PM on Nov 24:]

18

# 11. Chris... funny =)!

[19. Sheridan said the following at 12:13 AM on Nov 25:]

19

Mr Slater,

I'm so glad that you do bring up these issues on Boundless!
Over here in Oz, We have a few journalists going nuts over this email scam. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun has been publishing the emails, and is trying his hardest to get it out to mainstream media. Even though Andrew has a fair bit of clout in media circles, it is amazing how many media outlets REFUSE to even mention the emails.
In Australia things are really getting heated in political circles. Our government is trying to push carbon tax, while the opposition party is divided (half of the party thinks climate change is a scam.
More and more scientists are speaking up, and a small group of journalists are fighting like crazy to get the real evidence out there.
What scares me is how people are not listening.

If you want to check out Andrew Bolt's stuff:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

[20. Leah said the following at 12:44 AM on Nov 25:]

20

Josh, I think you should google "climate change emails". Outright proof that scientists have been conspiring to hide data which does not match up with their hypotheses, and twisting that which can be twisted.

To Lia (12) and Befuddled (7): scientists gain money from the people, corporations and governments who fund them and who want them to come up with these climate change results. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson who used to work for NASA said "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly... As a scientist I remain skeptical" and IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh said that warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
The scientists may also stand to gain power given to them by governments and politicians.

Of course I'm sure many scientists are genuinely convinced of global warming. But obviously some of them keep their doubts silent for fear of losing funding, and then there are many who will speak their doubts too.

Jethro (10) - most Christians would not purport to scientifically support creation. While there is much evidence against what is commonly known as evolution (I say that because there are some aspects of evolution which are quite observably true), there is no scientific proof for creation. Sure, there's evidence against evolution sometimes, and there's evidence that might suggest creation, but we do not suggest that we can scientifically prove creation. We believe in creation because that's what the bible says happened. If you don't believe the bible, well, that's a whole different debate which I don't think is worth going into here.

Global warming or climate change, however, is purely scientific. It is a claim made by scientists, who claim science backs up the hypothesis, when in fact it doesn't and they've been fudging a lot of their results and hiding data that does not agree with them.

Beth (5) since when was Boundless about dating and marriage? Please show me, because last I checked, Boundless' taglines were "Bringing Focus to the Single Years" and "Extreme Conversation Starters for young adults". Their "About Us" section talks about navigating the season between leaving the home of your youth and establishing your own home; and "bringing your gifts, talents and Christian worldview to bear on your whole life". It's a vague, broad spectrum. Hardly dating/marriage-specific.

I think this topic would be especially interesting to science and politics students.

farmer Tom - your insane comments are giving normal climate change sceptics a bad name. The climate change scientists want to eliminate us? Get real. In the words of the classic Captain Jack Sparrow, you're being "more than less than unhelpful".

[21. Michael V said the following at 6:48 AM on Nov 25:]

21

You're implying that a consortium of international scientists are manufacturing information about global warming in a plan with the U.S. government to create alarm and take the money of U.S. citizens, and then use that money for countermeasures against something... they know doesn't exist.

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory. It also doesn't add up.

So again... can we get back to Christianity?

[22. eric langdon said the following at 7:10 AM on Nov 25:]

22

Lia

Over 7 billion dollars of US taxpayer money per year in grants go to universities and others for AGW research. If due to lies and fraud this money dries up many of those scientists and researchers will have to find other sources of funding for their livelyhood. They wont easily give up this government teet.

[23. twilley said the following at 7:50 AM on Nov 25:]

23

Ted, #15:

I understand that you don't find the science which supports global warming convincing. And I understand that you don't support cap and trade programs, and feel they will put money in the wrong peoples' pockets...

But I still can't understand how these two things are related... Even if some scientist did falsify information to add to the consensus around global warming, that scientist would not benefit in any way from a cap and trade program, would she?

How do these two points become a conspiracy?

[24. Chris said the following at 9:32 AM on Nov 25:]

24

Michael V writes (#21):

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory. It also doesn't add up.

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you! Obviously, you've been brain washed by our communist indoctrination centers learned some critical thinking.

Oh, and please remember to get your mind control injection flu shot this year.

[25. Ted Slater said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 25:]

25

Clearly, more information is necessary to catch some of you up to speed on the **anthropogenic** global warming fraud, and why this is an issue of Christian stewardship.

Here are some excerpts from the Washington Examiner that help explain the situation:

The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies....

Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn't be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment of climate research: "Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."

These are the scientists who drive climate policy....

If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding....

And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

Yes, it's difficult and embarrassing to realize that you've been duped into believing that humans are responsible for a kind of global warming that will destroy the planet. It's difficult to believe that those we've considered beyond corruption -- environmental scientists, for example -- would sell out for a bit of proverbial porridge. It's difficult to believe that those in government who represent us would use this fake data as the reason to raise our taxes ("cap and trade") and control our lives ("agenda 21").

But the facts are there, for all to see: planet-killing AGW is a fraud, pushed by hypocritical profiteers who care only about money and power: consider their jet trips, their wasteful homes, their expanding waistlines.

For the sake of truth and Christian stewardship, let's see beyond this hysterical AGW fear-mongering and invest our energies into something productive.

[26. BDB said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 25:]

26

Jethro (#17) - yes, I'm saying that those on the left are engaged in a pattern and practice of trying to force their views on others - the exact criticism they level at Conservative Christians involved in politics.

Someday I may end up hoping the Libertarians win.

[27. Nancy said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 25:]

27

What do you make of the visible changes the planet is undergoing? My sister climbed Kilimanjaro 2 years ago, and the snow/ice levels were at their lowest in recorded history . . . and they've shrunk more since then. Same for polar ice caps. At the same time, there are millions more carbon-emitting cars on the road in India & China, and hundreds of new coal-burning power plants being built in China. I think it's disingenuous to blame *all* the environmental changes on natural cycles/fluctuations. Surely just these few factors I've named must have *some* impact.

Or maybe the scientists are exaggerating because most of us are lazy, and won't change our habits unless we think there's a crisis . . .

[28. BDB said the following at 11:06 AM on Nov 25:]

28

Look, there is much in the "climate change" debate that is ideological. There may be some scientific evidence that thing are being affected by things like CO2 emissions, though I'm not convinced the models are right.

The SOLUTIONS offered are all nakedly ideological. They all demand that developed nations destroy their economy and transfer their technical knowledge and wealth to poorer nations. There is absolutely no biological or climatalogical science involved in those solutions. That's just pure leftist ideology.

From a scientific standpoint, plant more trees. Develop nuclear power like France. If you believe that CO2 emissions are the problem, there are LOTS of scientifically valid solutions that don't involve doing economic damage to developed economies.

But the leftists are all demanding solutions that destroy jobs. That is not anything close to science.

[29. nickinkansas said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 25:]

29

Where does Al Gore stand on all of this?

[30. Daniel said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 25:]

30

I always thought manmade global warming was comical... we can't even predict the weather right. Human arrogance is funny. Ignorance is even more hilarious, like some of the people who believe that no one has conspirative motives against them in a century that had Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc... etc...

[31. Ted Slater said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 25:]

31

Nancy (#27) -- "global warming" isn't responsible for what's happening at Kilimanjaro. Deforestation is responsible. One researcher explained:

"Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

A climatologist further explained:

"The greenhouse industry say ‘global warming,’ but then they would say that, wouldn’t they? The only problem with that knee-jerk explanation is that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of Kilimanjaro. Satellites have been measuring temperature since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters altitude, and they show no tropospheric warming in that area. None.”

Regarding the ice caps -- they melt during that hemisphere's summer, and freeze back up during that hemisphere's winter. Some parts warm a bit more, and some parts cool a bit more. In fact, the caps are not shrinking, but GROWING, and not growing warmer but growing COLDER.

Even if things warm up eventually, why do we assume it's caused by humans letting off more CO2 or methane or water vapor? Why do we never hear about the effects of solar activity? Because the sun can't be taxed, and the sun can't be controlled.

And why do we assume a warmer global climate will be a bad thing? I'd argue that increased greenhouse gases -- water vapor and CO2 -- are actually GOOD for plant life, and therefore good for the earth's inhabitants.

[32. Befuddled said the following at 11:59 AM on Nov 25:]

32

Ted, I have no problem admitting to being "duped into believing that humans are responsible for a kind of global warming that will destroy the planet," if that is indeed the case. (This chain of emails, while intriguing, does not prove this in any fashion; it only demonstrates a degree of assumed corruption.)

What I do have a problem with is this bogus idea that the scientists are hijacking American policy to increase tax dollars for their research. What is this? Something out of Scooby-Doo?

Also, your editorial from the Washington Examiner is just as agenda-driven as you perceive these IPCC scientists to be. What goes around, comes around, I suppose.

[33. Samantha said the following at 12:03 PM on Nov 25:]

33

I think Ted deserves a lot of respect. He stands by what the evidence shows, even when others don't agree. He doesn't change his mind based on what's popular. How many people can say that?

I never bought into this man-made climate change rubbish. I was only ten years old when all that Y2K nonsense was going on, but I remember thinking how funny it was that everyone was getting so worked up. When the global-warming hysteria started I thought,"I wonder what it'll be next?" Apparently it's Swine Flu, next decade it'll be something else.

Yes, Christians need to take care of God's earth but NOT at the expense of those who live here. Global Warming is such a first world problem. It's what people who want to appear to make a difference without actually doing anything think about.

What if had put all the money that went to saving the world from natural heat cycles and instead put it towards solving world hunger?

[34. BDB said the following at 12:12 PM on Nov 25:]

34

Nancy (#27) wrote:

>>What do you make of the visible changes the planet is undergoing?<<

The planet seems to have been warming up...ever since the last ice age.

[35. Matt Kaufman said the following at 12:28 PM on Nov 25:]

35

Let me suggest another Christian angle on this issue. The angle takes a bit to develop, so be patient.

In Ted's comment (#25), he quotes an author commenting that "Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis." That "sense of purpose" part deserves more attention.

Many of us tend to believe that whatever we do professionally is the most important thing in the world. Few of us would put it that way out loud, and many haven't even consciously thought about it that way. But all of us can understand it.
It's just a natural inclination. It reflects both where our attention is and (no small thing) the hunger of our egos.

Now put yourself in the place of a climate scientist. You're encouraged to believe that your work is about nothing less than saving the world. Imagine how intoxicating that is. You don't consciously desire to spread falsehood, but your overwhelming impulse is to interpret all the evidence in a way that elevates the importance of what you do -- something that gives a sense of meaning to what you do every day, far beyond the rewards that any paycheck can convey. Anyone who argues that perhaps the fate of the world doesn't hinge on what you do for a living is therefore diminishing you and your work --the whole purpose of your life.

Which brings us to the Christian angle. Well, almost.

Before anyone thinks I'm about to suggest that Christians are immune to the same temptation, for get it. Some get into fighting "climate change" themselves: They want to feel they're saving the world too. Others plunge into other secular causes which they mistakenly approach with religious fervor. I'd argue that the recent effort to spread "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, without regard for the realities of the region, was one such case. There are all kinds of other examples where Christians have gone astray.

All that said, Christianity itself (as distinct from individual Christians) does stress that what we do is nowhere near as important as what God does. I must decrease that Christ may increase.

To the extent that we internalize that attitude, our felt need to build up what we do will diminish. And we can see all the more clearly how people in various professions -- especially people without faith in God -- will tend to magnify what they do, to find a sense of meaning in their lives to feed the natural longing for meaning that can only truly be fulfilled by God himself.

All this is true, BTW, regardless of what you think of the evidence for man-made global warming. I'm not really into the issue: Though what I know about it inclines me to be skeptical, I'm quite open to empirical evidence to change my mind. But it'd take a lot more than an invocation of scientific consensus to convince me. I'm too aware of the very human tendencies which afflict scientists not one bit less than the rest of us -- and which may afflict some of them more. Whenever I hear some variant of "everyone knows that...," my spider- sense starts tingling.

[36. Ultraviolet said the following at 2:03 PM on Nov 25:]

36

Am I the only one wondering how we know that these emails are real?

I don't understand why there is such resistance to man-made climate change. I mean, making small changes in one's lifestyle to better help the planet. Even if there is some giant conspiracy about scientists wanting to steal American tax dollars, it's not like our environmental practices in the West are *helping* the planet. Cut back on the things you can (you know, the ones that don't fund all these plotting scientists) like riding your bike more, not leaving your furnace on when you don't have to, etc. and then just withhold judgment until we get a little more information. This adamant resistance to the idea that we could be negatively harming the planet is baffling to me.

[37. Joel said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 25:]

37

@ 36 Regarding whether the E-mails are real, as I understand it the owners of the server where they were supposedly taken from have acknowledged that the server was hacked, and several scientists have acknowledged the content of the released e-mails that they authored.

Are you really puzzled by the resistance to man-made climate change but not by the historically unprecedented campaign that has emerged in SUPPORT of man-made climate change?

Kicker is that even if it WERE true, and the earth's temperature went up by 3 degrees or whatever the "experts" are threatening this week, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's been much warmer before, and it will likely be warmer again, and humanity tends to do better when it's warm than when it's cold. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/inbetweeners-enjoy-the-warmth-while-it-lasts/ What more could you ask for?

[38. BDB said the following at 3:08 PM on Nov 25:]

38

Samantha (#33) wrote:

>>I was only ten years old when all that Y2K nonsense was going on, but I remember thinking how funny it was that everyone was getting so worked up.<<

Yeah, I remember the moment I realized it wasn't true. In the presentation a guy at my church gave, I realized that it all hinged on one executive at a power company saying a plant shut down because of the integrated chips. And from that they extrapolated that EVERY power plant in the world would shut down.

My thought was, "I wonder if that was a marketing executive, not an engineer."

Because, of course any power-company engineer who hears that is immediately going to test the power plant they are responsible for and make sure that THEIRS is not going to shut off. And even if it did in a test, they're going to find a work-around long before it actually happens.

The rest of that hype was built around all the electricity shutting down.

While yes, some glaciers have been receding, they've been doing that since the last ice age, when most of North America was covered by ice. The planet obviously started warming from that ice age long before humans began burning fossil fuels. I'm quite confident that the non-human causes that began and ended previous ice ages are continuing without paying any heed to what humans are doing.

[39. BDB said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 25:]

39

Ultraviolet (#36) wrote:

>>Am I the only one wondering how we know that these emails are real?<<

Several things lend credence to their authenticity.

1) The people whose e-mails were publishd are in stunned silence, refusing to respond to press inquiries. If they were fake, they would have immediately pointed that out.

2) The scientists that were spoken of negatively in the e-mails immediately spoke up to the press, saying they suspected something was going on, and this helps them understand why they were running into resistance.

3) Failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests can be considered a crime in some jurisdictions. Refusal to provide requested documents is often a red flag for fraud. The fact that they were discussing how to engage in this type of fraud is itself cause for an audit. Remember, Arthur Anderson was given a corporate death sentence for shredding documents as obstruction of justice. If these guys really were destroying data to hide the truth, they're no better than the folks at Enron.

And to refute the charge that they were destroying data, all they have to do is publish the data and say, "We have nothing to hide - here it is."

Instead, they remain silent...probably on the advice of their lawyers.

[40. Al said the following at 3:18 PM on Nov 25:]

40

Matt, thanks for that post-- it was a fair and evenhanded analysis of why some may manipulate facts for their cause, and a good reminder that we are hardly immune from that tendency even as believers. We are often affected by the same sorts of biases and temptations that we observe those who disagree with us to suffer from. And thanks for the reminder that who God is and what He does is still more important than the tangental and debatable issues we are often tempted to latch onto Christianity as essentials, even as we should continue to investigate and debate with integrity.

[41. Michael Fumento said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 25:]

41

In response to Violet and comment 36, it's not an inherent opposition in everybody's case and certainly not in mine. And no, I have no industry ties and have never gotten a cent from any fossil fuel company.

I'm a science writer and researcher and I've found - as have many others - that the science at the very least isn't nearly as strong as global warming advocates say it is. For example, it's a fact that there's been no warming over the last decade even though during that same time period the amount of greenhouse gas emissions has increased by a fourth. Why not?

This doesn't disprove a connection between mankind's activities and warming, but at the very least it shows that the equation of "more gases = more warming" is a gross oversimplification. Add that we know there have been tremendous historical fluctulations in which man could not have played a role, such as the "Little Ice Age" and the medieval warming period.

Now the role of man in the warming that occurred up to about 10 years ago seems rather more tenuous, doesn't it?

It would seem that before we spend a fortune to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we should make a better effort to understand what role if any they truly play in warming.

[42. Jethro said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 25:]

42

Farmer Tom (#9),

Is that you Glen Beck?

[43. Jethro said the following at 3:35 PM on Nov 25:]

43

Ted,

You know it just occured to me that you have not seen fit to condemn the crime perpetrated by the computer hackers...

What should we take from that? Last I checked this would constitute a pretty serious crime all of its own...

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 4:46 PM on Nov 25:]

44

Jethro,

I've listened to Glen Beck for about 20 minutes one day while hauling hog manure.

I was not impressed.

If what I said in #9 sounds like Glen Beck, then he's obviously smarter than I thought. Maybe he's been reading my comments.

[45. BDB said the following at 6:21 PM on Nov 25:]

45

Personally, I think it's a mistake to assume these scientists are engaging in a fradulent cover-up to advance their own financial interests. While it is perfectly true that many frauds are designed for the financial benefit of the one committing fraud, it is hardly the only motivation out there.

Think about it - how many people are pro-Life because it makes them money? We know that organizations like Planned Parenthood and certain abortion doctors make a ton of money from the practice. And we can conjecture whether organized crime would like to have it back as a money-making scheme. But are pro-Lifers going to somehow make money if the country wakes up and stops killing its own children?

Similarly, from what I read from these e-mails, they seem to be driven by ideology rather than guaranteed financial gain. Yes, Al Gore seems to have made a lot of money - not the least the million-dollar Peace Prize. But most scientists don't have access to that kind of money.

One of my more liberal family members suggested that because I was not one of the global-warming deniers, I was in the camp who believed that there would be winners (Canada) and losers (Maldives). The fact that temperatures have not risen for the last 10 years, despite CO2 emissions increasing by 25%, tells me that human CO2 emissions must not be terribly relevant to the process. So, for goodness sake, don't destroy all the CO2-producing jobs for the sake of a scientific model that has been wrong for the last decade.

It's clear to me that the climate-change quantitative models are no better than the quantitative models used for the real-estate mortgage industry. The guys at Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Indymac, and Merrill Lynch are not all idiots. But clearly, their quantitative risk models were wrong. I'm not at all convinced that the climate change scientists are better and building quantitative models to predict the future.

[46. DJS said the following at 8:45 PM on Nov 25:]

46

Folks, many of you are missing the point and skipping steps in Ted's logic.

1. Certain scientists explored the theory of global warming and rightly or wrongly felt that manmade global warming was happening.

2. Liberal politicians in America ran with this research and did two things: one, poured more money to these scientists and others to continue to prove this theory. And two, used this idea that "man" is ruining the world to legislate extra laws and regulations and taxes to continue to turn America into a socialist nation.

3. Neither the scientists (finances and power)nor the politicians (political ideology) can now afford to have their almost "made up" theory disproved.

Recognize that governments and politicians are constantly trying to seize more power. Not just the government of America! This a trend that is historically born out. Look at any group in government and over a long period of time they will consistently look for ways to increase their power and influence over the population.

This is simply human nature played out in politics. That is why checks and balances, and the willingness to enforce those checks and balances is so crititical to the freedom of a population.

[47. farmer Tom said the following at 9:42 PM on Nov 25:]

47

For those of you who are skeptical of Ted's assertions that the goal of the AWG crowd is one world government. Here's something to put in your pipe and smoke.

Listen very closely at 1:30 into the clip of the new European Union President's acceptance speech on November 19th of 2009.

New EU President

Here is a print version of that part of the speech. I highlighted the most telling parts.

"We're living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence," he said in his maiden press conference. "Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Ted didn't dream this up. I saw it on Youtube. You may not like the facts, but they are telling you if you will listen. They want a one world government. Any questions?

[48. Samantha said the following at 2:18 AM on Nov 26:]

48

Jethro (#42)

So THAT'S what people do when they can't think of a good argument. I'll have to remember that one...

Why not try to defend your view instead of simply attacking others?

BTW, maybe Farmer Tom really wants to be Glenn Beck and you just made his day ;)

[49. BI said the following at 6:27 AM on Nov 26:]

49

Ted, why are you surprised that scientists who receive funding for research supporting Global Warming try to convince everyone that GW is real and dangerous? It is surely much easier to get funding if one is trying to save the planet from a great danger than for something much less significant in scope. The real question for me is which human activity has the most disastrous effect on the environment – is it really only the emission of CO2 gases in the atmosphere?

I think it is doubtless that in our industrial age we have some influence on the environment. In my opinion, the issue is much more complicated than whether there is global warming or not as BDB #13 has pointed out in his comment. Companies can easily go abroad and dump all their toxic waste in a poor country where they have bribed the local officials. Who is going to hold them accountable for this? Can toxic waste thrown in one part of the world not affect eventually the whole world? However, biologists and scientist keep on talking about CO2 emissions and Global Warming while ignoring issues of other kinds of industrial pollution such as toxic waste, non-point pollution, genetically modified foods (this is a little off topic, but I will elaborate later), over-production and over-consumption leading to too much waste in advanced economies, and others. Not to mention of course poor sanitation and poor living conditions for the poor which can also lead to a different kind of pollution – AIDS, HIV, malaria, etc.

Everyone who has studied econometrics which is used in all fields of science knows that a scientist can only prove a relationship (albeit an indirect one) but not a direct causality between any two events. So, Ted, you ask why scientists want to manipulate data so they can prove Global Warming. If scientists truly want to find the truth (because let’s say they consider God’s authority), then they will not focus only on one issue but they will try to see the big picture. However, if their ultimate authority comes from the source of their funding, well, that’s where one is going to find their truth also, even at the cost of manipulating data. I am an economist and I’ll ask you a question: do you think that all the economic data that you get from the government is accurate and trustworthy? If the government is trying to prove that its policies are working, do you think that its researchers are going to ride against the tide and prove something different? For instance, have you ever thought how can a country grow and prosper for so many years mainly by printing paper? What does your country produce besides “services’ which are included in the GDP and what kind of material goods does your country consume? Where do these material goods come from? Has anyone asked themselves at what cost are all these material goods produced which Americans are so freely consuming? For instance, the goods that come from China, do you have any idea how many people suffered to produce them and were exploited so that Americans can buy them cheap? No one really thinks about this – where this particular product does come from and what kind of labor, slave or oppressive or exploitative, was used to produce it. However, China is a good friend of America as long as it provides cheap products and it is not our problem about the civil rights abuses and the exploitation of labor that take place there, right? Most economists will object to me and say that the Chinese laborers chose to work for the ridiculously low salary that companies offered to them. But, what kind of a choice is that: to toil under a repressive regime where no one may reward you or to toil for a low salary in competition with billions of other Chinese in order to feed one’s family! It’s like a single mother in Africa which has to choose between watching her child starve to death or accept to lie with an HIV positive male who can provide for her child’s future. What kind of a choice is that? Sometimes the poor do not have a choice.

Ted, have you watched the movie King Corn or Supersize Me? Do you know the damage that non nutritious food can cause in the long run? Nevertheless, even great evangelicals invest in such companies, as these companies return great profits with their cheap tasty and addictive but unhealthy food.

Even in church people sometimes like to substitute the truth for something else. How did some people come with the idea that gay marriage is something natural? Did they see this as natural in nature or did they read it in the Bible? Or maybe they saw it deep in someone’s check book, or someone in high position of power developed some kind of special liking for the same sex or maybe both? (sorry for being cynical!) Sometimes people turn their own self-interest into their truth. That’s part of human nature and sin in general.

I can tell you that even now many people in the church think that I am not a Christian because when I speak the truth, they do not like it or accept it. Hence, they push me away, look down on me and treat me as a non-believer. They prefer to think and claim (usually behind my back) that I am not a Christian because I have not repented for speaking what they did not want to hear regardless of whether it is true or not true. Nobody wants to know the truth; everyone wants to hear only what it pleases their own self-interest. But, what is hidden one day will be revealed, and all these people will be utterly ashamed for what they thought, said and done behind my back. Does what they think matter about my Christian faith? No, it does not, because I know to whom I belong and in whom I have placed all my trust, that’s Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. But for the time being, I can only offer this quote from the Bible: Luke 18: 9-14.

[50. twilley said the following at 10:30 AM on Nov 26:]

50

BI, #49:

I'm not sure how gay marriage fits into your greater argument, but it might be better left out. Those of us who are gay and who want to get married aren't looking for checkbooks or power, we're looking to live our lives without discrimination and oppression.

[51. BDB said the following at 12:50 PM on Nov 26:]

51

Bl (#49) - One thing I'd quibble with you on is genetically modified food. As long as we've had agriculture, plans have been bred to make them stronger and more productive. The GMO crops that are derided in Europe are developed more precisely than "organic" cross-breeding. But they're still plants. And - what appeals to me the most - they are developed to be pest and disease resistant. This allows them to be cultivated successfully without pesticides. Pesticides which the poor can't afford anyway.

Having been in countries where people are working those low-wage manufacturing jobs; to people in those countries, they are often a HUGE improvement to, say, growing rice and raising chickens to survive.

There are a variety of components to manufacturing. (No pun intended.) Just because a factory in China can BUILD something, doesn't mean they can ENGINEER it.

If the U.S. really wanted to build U.S. manufacturing capacity, they should let EVERY science and engineering graduate of a U.S. college get a green card. That way they can live in the U.S. and create jobs here. As it is, they develop their skills then go back to their home country and create jobs here.

[52. grace said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 26:]

52

Carbon credits anyone?

[53. Bob said the following at 4:36 PM on Nov 26:]

53

All "climate change" is a product of nature not man. Much of "climate change" can be attributed to the sun's solar flare and sun spot activity. People whine about it getting warmer but the Earth used to be warmer than it is now. During Roman times, grapes were grown in England but it is too cold for that now. And people whine about glaciers melting but many of these glaciers did not even show up until the onset of the Dark Ages and several other mini-ice ages that humanity has experienced during the last 2,00 years. All of these climate changes were the result of solar activity or volcanic activity, not people. So go blame mother nature for climate change not me.

Even if global warming was really going on (which in fact the earth is cooling) all of the things government have promised to do about it would not do a thing at all to stop it, only to amass an enormous amount of power and money for themselves at our expense.

[54. Chris said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 26:]

54

farmer Tom writes (#47):

Here is a print version of that part of the speech. I highlighted the most telling parts.

"We're living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence," he said in his maiden press conference. "Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Ted didn't dream this up. I saw it on Youtube. You may not like the facts, but they are telling you if you will listen. They want a one world government. Any questions?

I interpreted the statement as governments working together in concert, much as they tried to do with the G20 and global efforts to deal with the financial crisis.

But, I guess if you're looking for evidence for a one world government, black UN helicopters, and even a world leader who's going to put the mark of the beast on us all, you'll find whatever evidence you want to find.

You are severely misguided. Go back and highlight "joint effort". Now tell me that means a one world government.

[55. Ted Slater said the following at 10:50 PM on Nov 26:]

55

Yes, this seems to be a worldwide conspiracy to take money and power from us commoners.

Check out this breaking news, just out of New Zealand:

"The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre."

Senator Inhofe has, like many, made the connection between this fraudulent data and increased government control and higher taxes:

"The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated."

Again, this is relevant because we, as Christians, are to be wise stewards of truth and creation. Relationships are important, and so is truth and creation. That's why this topic is good for us to discuss here on Boundless. It's also good for us to discuss here on Boundless because young adults have the most to lose if these government programs are enacted.

[56. Ted Slater said the following at 11:04 PM on Nov 26:]

56

Chris (#54) -- please tell me how you interpret the following sentence:

"The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Sounds like the EU President is talking about, um, "global management of our planet." The meaning is plain, isn't it? International leaders want global control, and are pushing a "global crisis" to gain that control. How else can you interpret what the EU President is saying?

[57. JVR from Denver said the following at 11:39 PM on Nov 26:]

57

Ted,

I can answer that. He's talking about us, people, on a global level MANAGING OUR PLANET. How we can work together on it, and try and get everyone involved.

He's NOT talking about that individual conference taking on some kind of EVIL SUPERVILLAIN status, twisting their mustaches and sending us all to internment camps if we don't kiss Al Gore's ring.

I'm not sure if you'll allow this comment to be posted or not, but you're just sounding crazier by the minute.

[58. twilley said the following at 2:03 AM on Nov 27:]

58

Ted, #56:

I just don't think it's as sinister as all that. I mean, elected politicians get replaced on a regular basis. Obama knows he will be out of office in 3-7 years, Angela Merkel knows she only has a few years left...

According to Wikipedia, the EU Presidency rotates every six months.

These people aren't planning long-term dominance like dictators.

But IF this is a global problem, and a real problem, then it HAS to be managed globally. Otherwise, what will we have? Rich countries doing things which are convenient for them, and which dump waste and poverty on less wealthy nations. I mean, even if you don't find the evidence for climate change compelling...

The problem of global pollution and environmental preservation must also be managed globally.

How else will we get wealthy nations to check their reckless and wasteful lifestyles, while giving poorer ones the ability to install clean technology? We are beginning on an uneven playing field, and if we all want to work together to clean up our oceans and rivers, which we all share, we must do it internationally... even globally.

[59. BI said the following at 6:45 AM on Nov 27:]

59

BDB, # 51

Let me first express my appreciation for your comments. I have no idea how one can make so many comments as you make on Boundless while putting substance into them when this is not even your primary job.

About genetically modified food – have you ever watched King Corn? Please, watch it and let’s discuss it then. Just as a side note before you watch the movie, GMO can be developed in such a way so as to even grow when you apply the appropriate pesticides. The great advantage of GMO is yield and profit, and certainly not the fact that they can be cultivated without pesticides. Usually the poor produce the most organic food, because they do not apply any fertilizers or pesticides to their crops, as they do not have the money for this. Hence, they produce a smaller yield and a smaller profit unlike the GMO crops.

>There are a variety of components to manufacturing. (No pun intended.) Just because a factory in China can BUILD something, doesn't mean they can ENGINEER it.<

This slogan does no longer hold. Why do you think the Chinese allowed American companies into their country to exploit their abundant supply of cheap labor? So that the government can get US dollars and attain American know-how. The Chinese government collects US dollars by levying all kinds of duties and charges on American companies located in China which export their produce to the US. One of the conditions for an American company to locate itself in China is to hire and train native Chinese, usually submissive to the government, in key managerial positions in the company. As time goes on, the Chinese hope to attain enough know-how so that they can become both the Engineers and the Builders, and thus move ahead of the US and eventually be entirely self-reliant. After all, no one wants to be only a source of cheap labor or a producer of raw materials at a low price in highly competitive markets.

BTW, if you ever go to China, you may be able to notice the incredible advances in technology and robotics that companies employ there. It is amazing to see how far they have progressed.

However, meanwhile the Chinese government wants to encourage more companies to locate in China. Hence, the Chinese attempt to provide very favorable business conditions. And one of these conditions is a stable exchange rate of its currency in relation to US dollars. Here is where it gets tricky. In order to do this, the Chinese government (similar to the Japanese government) has to intervene on open markets and buy American dollars in order to prop up the depreciating American currency in relation to the Chinese one (renminbi). Hence, then they use most of their US dollars to buy US Treasuries from the US government as US Treasuries return an interest. In the end, the Chinese government turns out to be the world’s largest international holder of US treasuries (around $800 billion). These interventions create great imbalances on the exchange rate market and on the market for Treasuries. In addition, think about just how interrelated and interdependent the two countries are – what will happen if the Chinese decide suddenly to get rid of all their US dollars and Treasuries? In conclusion, all of this could not have been possible if China did not have a centrally-planned communist regime willing to engage with the US companies and government in some kind of a mutually beneficial economic symbiosis. So, it can really go deep from here as you can see. However, I will stop here for now.

[60. BI said the following at 6:48 AM on Nov 27:]

60

twilley, #50:

No one is discriminating and oppressing you – no one has ever taken your human rights away and no one considers you less of a human being because you have chosen to live your life a certain way. However, the Bible argues that your choice is not really the best one for you, and actually can be quite harmful for your own self. Consider with me for a while – human relationships are usually complicated as they involve a lot of feelings and emotions, misunderstandings, conflicts and all kinds of other stuff. However, people are not only physical beings. There are also spiritual ones. In other words, what the physical traits show us and point us to is usually a much deeper and tense spiritual reality. For instance, as men and women are created to physically complement each other so they are created to complement each other spiritually. While many people focus only on the superficial issues, especially sex and good looks, there is a much deeper and greater spiritual reality consisting of person’s emotions, dreams, desires, and character as a whole. Unfortunately, many people focus only on the physical attraction between two individual while ignoring this other much richer and greater spiritual reality. That’s why you can see why it is wise for Christians not to engage in sexual activity before marriage as they seek to form first this kind of a spiritual bond that will last a lifetime.

I know it’s sometimes a lot easier to relate emotionally and psychologically with members of the same sex than with members of the opposite whom one does not understand at all. I don’t know about physically and physical pleasure, but spiritually one can never find the completeness in a same-sex union as one has not been created this way. You can see for yourself this need of a male and female union and completeness in many same-sex couples when one member is the dominant and more masculine one and the other one the weaker and the more female one. They are simply trying to compensate for the spiritual lack. Nevertheless, this is your life and you choose how to live it best for yourself. BTW, Boundless has many articles on the topic – if you’re interested, please ask the edits to point you there. It is a shame that you are a Christian and not have a proper understanding of what is best for you. Not everything that feels good for your body is beneficial for your soul. Take certain drugs for instance that can provide great pleasure, but ultimately they will take something else away from you. However, whatever you do to your soul, this should not make one think of you as less than a person.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 9:02 AM on Nov 27:]

61

twilley (#58) -- you wrote:

"The problem of global pollution and environmental preservation must also be managed globally."

No, I will not let you get away with introducing "pollution" into a conversation about climate change. This global warming fraud is in NO WAY similar to the justifiable concern about pollution and environmental preservation.

Pollution is bad for the environment; the environment THRIVES on CO2 and water vapor (the top 2 "greenhouse gases").

If there's going to be global management of "pollution," then I can think of some countries in Asia that should receive a lot more attention than the States. Of course, that's not going to happen because it's NOT about the environment, it's about money and control.

Here's a question: If I don't submit to this "global management," will I be punished? And who will punish me? Americans, or some "global management" body? Who has the power of enforcement in this "global management"?

These rhetorical questions point to our sacrificing our sovereignty -- our freedom and our wealth -- for the sake of some manufactured global "crisis." Follow the money ...

[62. Ted Slater said the following at 9:28 AM on Nov 27:]

62

For discussion, I introduce to you a graph of the global sea ice area from 1979 to present. This includes ice from both the north pole and the south pole. Click the image to see it larger:

As you can see, while ice melts in the summer and re-freezes in the winter, overall the trend is flat. In other words, we are not experiencing a crisis, folks.

[63. Chris said the following at 10:44 AM on Nov 27:]

63

Ted writes (#56):

Chris (#54) -- please tell me how you interpret the following sentence:

"The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Sounds like the EU President is talking about, um, "global management of our planet." The meaning is plain, isn't it? International leaders want global control, and are pushing a "global crisis" to gain that control. How else can you interpret what the EU President is saying?

I suppose if you want to interpret "global management" as "global control", you can. I view it as countries coordinating efforts (via individual actions, treaties, combined efforts) to address a problem.

If the subject was instead "global management" of, oh, say, a response to terrorism or poverty or free trade or the human traffic/sex trade, would you view that a ruse for global control?

[64. twilley said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 27:]

64

Ted, #61:

By giving the example of pollution, I wasn't trying to provoke argument--I just realize that you don't agree with the science which shows global warming, and I wanted to give an example you could relate to, to give you another way of understanding the idea of "global management."

So all I wanted to do was to try and give us another way to look at the question of "global management." I mean, I think we could say that the problem of, say, water source pollution needs to be managed globally, since the bodies we get our water from don't respect national boundaries.

I mean, personally I don't have any problem with some repercussions for people who don't respect the environment. In Germany, for instance, recycling is sort of mandatory. If the trash guys see you are always dumping tons of bottles in the garbage which could be recycled, they can report you (although they rarely do) and you can be fined (although this rarely happens).

Personally, I think fighting to preserve our environment is best done on a local level, but with an eye towards international cooperation if that makes sense. I don't know if instituting the trash tax in the US would really work because of cultural differences, but certainly we can find some way to deal with polluters that would work for us. Even if you don't think we should try to reduce carbon emissions, I think we might agree that some kind of punitive measures are effective in reducing environmental pollution more generally.

[65. twilley said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 27:]

65

BI, #60:

I find your comment off-topic. My post meant to point out to you that you were, I thought, getting off topic by bringing in gay rights. I would like to reply to what you say, but don't want to break the comment policy. I hope the editors do not mind posting my response.

"No one is discriminating and oppressing you"

This is not the truth. I am currently being discriminated against by my employer financially. At my last job, I experienced intimidation by my supervisors because of my sexual orientation.

"no one considers you less of a human being because you have chosen to live your life a certain way."

This isn't true either; I have had my humanity disrespected many times because of my sexuality.

"However, the Bible argues that your choice is not really the best one for you, and actually can be quite harmful for your own self."

I accept that you interpret the Bible to say this, and would like to say that I have a differing interpretation of the text, and do not find homosexuality itself harmful.

"Unfortunately, many people focus only on the physical attraction between two individual while ignoring this other much richer and greater spiritual reality"

I agree that this is unfortunate, and I also agree that godly relationships must be at the same time physical and spiritual.

"I know it’s sometimes a lot easier to relate emotionally and psychologically with members of the same sex than with members of the opposite whom one does not understand at all."

This is not my experience--I find that I relate equally well to both men and women. My best friends have always been a mix of male and female.

"spiritually one can never find the completeness in a same-sex union."

I disagree, and would like to let you know that my spiritual relationship with my partner is as complete as that in a comparable heterosexual relationship.

"Boundless has many articles on the topic"

I am aware of this, and I have read extensively throughout the FotF websites to understand the organization's thinking on homosexuality.

"It is a shame that you are a Christian and not have a proper understanding of what is best for you."

I disagree, and feel that I do have a proper understanding of what is best for me, as well as what direction God is giving me in my life.

"Not everything that feels good for your body is beneficial for your soul. Take certain drugs for instance that can provide great pleasure, but ultimately they will take something else away from you."

This is most certainly true. Plenty of things which feel good are horrible for you physically and spiritually. I do not agree that being gay falls into this category.

"However, whatever you do to your soul, this should not make one think of you as less than a person."

I am glad you feel this way. I do not agree that I am doing anything to harm my soul by being a gay person, or by being in a long-term committed partnership. On the contrary, I believe God has given me my sexuality and my relationship to bring my soul closer to Him.

[66. Chris said the following at 11:55 AM on Nov 27:]

66

Ted writes (#61):

Pollution is bad for the environment; the environment THRIVES on CO2 and water vapor (the top 2 "greenhouse gases").

As I've pointed out here before, the mere fact that something is useful/beneficial to the environment or is part of the environment does not automatically exempt it from pollution concerns. Likewise, something being potentially dangerous does not make it an automatic threat. (Examples I've used before: Chrome, as a trace element, is important to the human diet. Chrome can also cause cancer. Water is critical to life. You can die from water intoxication.)

While we can argue whether or not CO2 and other gases at elevated levels pose a danger, please do not argue your point with very bad claims such as the one above.

[67. BDB said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 27:]

67

Bl (#59) wrote:

>>About genetically modified food – have you ever watched King Corn? Please, watch it and let’s discuss it then.<<

No, and I don't think I will. I looked up their web site and it is clearly written from a certain point of view which I'm already familiar with. Many of these issues, including corn subsidies, have been around for a long time. It was actually the debate topic when I was in high school, so I've spent way too much time studying agricultural policy.

I think they are missing the biggest policy problem: property taxes destroyed the family farm. Poor farmers - like my family in previous generations - could live off the land even in bad years. Until such time as their land was taxed for cash. With property taxes, farmers have to pay cash every year - even in a year when their crops fail. This forced many farmers to sell their farms to pay the taxes and take jobs in the city. Result: corporate farming.

It is actually relevant to this climate change debate because the pending legislation is designed to impose all sorts of new taxes. This will create huge compliance costs that the little guys can't bear. Regulation and taxation will probably force them out of business or force them to sell out to large corporations who CAN afford a compliance staff.

Taxes are behind the rise of Wal-Mart, too. Specifically, inheritance taxes. When a family builds a large business, the founders and the generation who built the company eventually get old and retire or die. Because of the estate tax laws, they cannot pass on their business whole. Some companies, like Wal-Mart, get around this problem by going public. Then the family can sell shares of stock to pay the estate taxes. But many mid-sized companies are too small to be public companies, even if they are big enough to be strong regional companies. So when their owner dies, they often are forced to sell the company to a larger company. They then get stock in the larger company, which they can sell to pay the taxes. But it wipes out a competitor to the large company.

I remember when the Muppets were sold to Disney. At first, I was disappointed that they lost their independence. About a year later, Jim Henson died of cancer. There really wasn't a choice; there was no way the company could stay intact after his death because of the death tax.

[68. twilley said the following at 4:41 PM on Nov 27:]

68

Ted, #62:

When I read around on the parent site for that image, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/, I found only scientists agreeing that climate change was happening and was problematic, so it seems that the people who posted the image have a different interpretation of it than you.

I am also not sure how this image supports your case--if you look at the lower part of the graph which represents net change in the sea ice area over time, you see that in more recent years the changes become much more drastic than previously, with the overall sea ice experiencing the most erratic changes in the last couple of years since the graph begins to track it in 1979. Looks like 2009 was the greatest net change yet, actually.

[69. Befuddled said the following at 7:02 PM on Nov 27:]

69

Nice chart, but without a source, it's meaningless.

[70. Philip said the following at 7:06 PM on Nov 27:]

70

Since global warming is predicted to decrease Arctic ice and increase or keep constant Antarctic ice, it makes more sense to look at them individually. Even if Ted were right about no overall trend in the combined data, it would be perfectly consistent with global warming. This site has a good graph, about 3/4 the way down, showing the monthly anomaly (i.e. seasonal trend removed) and trend lines for both. There is a clear decreasing trend for the Arctic and a lesser increase for the Antarctic.

[71. John said the following at 6:34 PM on Nov 28:]

71

To all those who say something like "well global warming has to exist because all these scientists say it does" should think about the field of science (in reality, science fiction in this case) evolution. Just b/c a bunch of people with "credentials" say something does not mean there is automatically any truth to it.

p.s.- if people were to do more digging they would find that there are many more scientists who denounce global warming as a fraud: for just two quick examples: Japan's Society of Energy and Resouces (JSER) and even the founder of the Weather Channel have denounced man made global warming.

Both evolution and global warming "research" is politically driven and masquerades as science; when in fact real science contradicts every thing these "researchers" and "scientists" say!

[72. Ted Slater said the following at 8:32 PM on Nov 28:]

72

In other news:

----------------------

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped....

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures....

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

----------------------

Essentially, the people who are convincing the UN's IPCC that "global warming" is a crisis ... are saying that the dog ate their homework. Weak.

Is it really not clear that this is a huge fraud? Seriously, I do not understand why anyone would still be defending these people.

Yes, care for the environment. But let's practice good stewardship of our faculties and resources, and not fall for this thing, yeah? If there's a "crisis," it's sin and deception, not "anthropogenic global warming."

[73. BI said the following at 10:12 PM on Nov 28:]

73

BDB, 67:
I do not support “their point of view” and I am not against corporate farming in general (as far as I know no one is against corporate farming but against the abuses done by companies and politicians). The issue here is not subsidies and not about taxes – these might be part only of the bigger picture. Please watch the movie, do your research, do the hard work, and then let’s discuss. Why should you dismiss something of value just because of a prejudice? I have been at an environmentalist conference where all kinds of people – Christians and non-Christians – were invited and everyone had to share their viewpoint about Global Warming, pollution, and social rights. When one is diligently looking for the truth, one can find it at all kinds of places. Of course, one always has to test what one believes to be true. At the very least you can learn what the other point of view really is without dismissing it prejudicially.

[74. BI said the following at 10:27 PM on Nov 28:]

74

twilley, 65
>I disagree, and would like to let you know that my spiritual relationship with my partner is as complete as that in a comparable heterosexual relationship.<
I really do not believe you. A proper relationship is done under the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God does not dwell in such places. You may have an attraction to your own sex but God is not there.
> I disagree, and feel that I do have a proper understanding of what is best for me, as well as what direction God is giving me in my life.<
The salvation of your soul is more important than your life and pleasure. Would you be willing to give up everything and follow God?
> I do not agree that I am doing anything to harm my soul by being a gay person, or by being in a long-term committed partnership. On the contrary, I believe God has given me my sexuality and my relationship to bring my soul closer to Him.<
You may believe many things, but what matters in the end is what is really true. And on the issue of the soul – you’d better know what you are talking about. You may believe you are doing nothing wrong to your soul when you steal or harm someone, but is your belief really true?

[75. BDB said the following at 12:08 AM on Nov 29:]

75

Bl (#73) wrote:

>>Why should you dismiss something of value just because of a prejudice?<<

Hmmm...oh, because based on their web site, it's encouraging people to engage in politics from a certain point of view. But their web site has zero data or references showing what their conclusions, if any, are based on. That tells me they aren't really researchers. They just made a propaganda film. Real policy researchers have lots and lots of footnotes and extensively cite both laws and published literature. Their cite...says contact your congressman. Huh? Nothing there to look at. Which tells me there's no real way to investigate their research.

I mean, if I wanted to get involved in a policy debate on how losing topsoil created the need for GMO crops, I could head down to the office of the Soil Conservaton Service. Then I can go look for counter-examples, whether in published journals or other sources.

Now, granted, sometimes these amateur documentaries do affect policy decisions. The guy who did SuperSize Me gained a bunch of weight. And his film convinced McDonald's to get rid of super-sizing. But it was hardly scientific research. It was investigative journalism.

[76. BI said the following at 12:53 AM on Nov 29:]

76

twilley,65

One more thing,
when you engage in homosexual activities, you are not only harming yourself but also the other person. Hence, I cannot condone such behavior as I cannot condone theft so thiefs may like me nor condone murder so murderers may like me. However, the best I can do to oppose your choice of lifestyle is try to disuade you from such behavior as much lovingly as possible. And all Christians should do similarly without trying to harm you or do anything evil to you as Christians are called to treat others with love and respect, even their enemies,. However, I cannot guarantee about non-Christians and how they are going to treat you because of your sexual oirentation.

[77. BI said the following at 2:47 AM on Nov 29:]

77

BDB,

I agree with you on SuperSize me although I have not watched the movie, but I know the journalist's style. However, there is some truth to his movie as well - fatty and grease food full only with sugar nad carbohydrates can be very delicious but actually starves your whole organism because it lacks vitamins and essential nutrients.

About their website - well, this is another conversation and discussion. Please watch the movie and let's discuss its data and facts. I think the movie is nothing like Michael Moore's style and can be very educating. Of course, when you have watched the movie, you can check the facts for yourself and then discuss it.

[78. BI said the following at 5:02 AM on Nov 29:]

78

BDB,

In general all documentary movies are more or less influenced by their authors’ bias and personal worldview. However, even non-Christians might be honestly looking for the truth amidst the lies that we are living in our world, and they may also produce quality works with truth and educational value found in them. Hence, it is good for Christians to get knowledge and truth from other places as well. Of course, we should always be careful and test everything and check the data and facts for ourselves.

Moreover, this may turn out to be a good meeting place with many non-Christians, especially younger people, who may also sincerely search for truth amidst the lies of this world. Hence, one can be a great witness to the truth of the gospel before people who earnestly search for truth in other areas of life.

[79. Chris said the following at 10:12 AM on Nov 29:]

79

Ted quotes from a link (#72):

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped....

Ted, why don't you finish that paragraph from the article (emphasis mine):

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

I do not post this to say that it disproves your fraud claims. Rather, I'd thought you'd want to use to it to further claim a "coverup". After all, data dumped in the 1980s during a move, before the "crisis", is an obvious ruse that was employed 20 years ago as part of a multi-decade plot.

[80. twilley said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 29:]

80

BI, #74:

"I really do not believe you. A proper relationship is done under the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God does not dwell in such places. You may have an attraction to your own sex but God is not there."

That's fine. If you don't believe that my experience of God working in my life is valid, then I accept that. I can tell what God has done for me, but people don't always listen to or believe testimony.

"The salvation of your soul is more important than your life and pleasure. Would you be willing to give up everything and follow God?"

Indeed, my soul's life is much more important than my pleasure. I would hope I could be ready to give up anything God asked me to.

"You may believe many things, but what matters in the end is what is really true. And on the issue of the soul – you’d better know what you are talking about. You may believe you are doing nothing wrong to your soul when you steal or harm someone, but is your belief really true?"

All I can do is look where God leads me, do the work God gives my hands to do, and try to follow. Then get up the next day and do it all over again. I hope I would never think something so foolish as to believe that hurting another person was good for my soul.

[81. Lauren said the following at 2:21 PM on Nov 29:]

81

Matt Kauffman #35: I applaud you.

[82. Ted Slater said the following at 5:52 PM on Nov 29:]

82

Money, money, money -- that's what this is all about. In an article published today in The Guardian titled "Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade," we read:

______________

The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.

The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.

The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe....

The criticisms of environmentalists such as James Lovelock and Friends of the Earth (FoE) are far more fundamental. The basic charge is that the market has put millions of pounds into the pockets of some without making any real impact on carbon emissions.

______________

Got that last part? It's all about making money off of "carbon credits," but after all is said and done there's no meaningful impact on carbon emissions. As if "carbon emissions" even does anything beyond giving plants something to breathe.

Again, I have to reinforce that I'm all in favor of protecting the environment from real pollution. But the stuff we breathe out and that plants breathe in is not "pollution" like factory sludge and car exhaust.

[83. twilley said the following at 2:47 AM on Nov 30:]

83

BI, #76:

"when you engage in homosexual activities, you are not only harming yourself but also the other person. Hence, I cannot condone such behavior as I cannot condone theft so thiefs may like me nor condone murder so murderers may like me."

That's fine. You are free to believe that I am harmful if you wish. Gay people have a hard time understanding when we are compared to murderers, thieves, pedophiles, and all the other awful things we are compared to, because we do not see that we are harming others. When someone murders, there's a bloody body on the ground. When two gay people are in love, there's just... two happy gay people :o) My partner doesn't really agree that she is being harmed by being in a loving and life-affirming relationship with me, either :o)

"However, the best I can do to oppose your choice of lifestyle"

I prefer the term "life" to the term "lifestyle." This is my life.

"is try to disuade you from such behavior as much lovingly as possible. And all Christians should do similarly without trying to harm you or do anything evil to you as Christians are called to treat others with love and respect, even their enemies,."

Go for it. Please feel free to dissuade to your heart's content. I appreciate that you believe in treating your enemies with love and respect; I believe the same.

"However, I cannot guarantee about non-Christians and how they are going to treat you because of your sexual oirentation."

This sounds ominous. In my experience, however, there is very little, if any difference between the treatment LGBTQI people receive from Christians and non-Christians who are also anti-gay.

[84. BI said the following at 11:16 AM on Nov 30:]

84

twilley, 83:

Ok, I’ll try one last time to dissuade both of you from being “two happy gay people.”

I might feel happy if I engage in a sexual conduct before marriage and I might feel perfectly happy to commit adultery when I get married without any trace of remorse or guilt in my soul. Also, the partner that I engage with might also feel very happy with me. However, sin is sin and my momentary feelings of happiness do not justify and condone my sin. I am responsible for my actions and for all the emotional and spiritual damage they will bring to others, and the others’ willful cooperation in sin does not excuse me. If your own criterion is happiness before God, then, you’re not serving the God that I know from the Bible. My criterion is love, but love that does not make us necessarily happy but love that makes us holy and moves us closer to God. Actually, sometimes one needs much Love from Above in order to put to death the desires of the flesh that can send one into hell for eternity.

In my opinion, God has clearly revealed in nature and in His written word, the Bible, that man and female are to become one, only. Hence, you may have an attraction for the same sex and you can enjoy their company and friendship, and even have a great spiritual connection with someone, but for your own sake and their sake you are not allowed to have any physical touch. That’s why previously I wrote so much on denying physical pleasure for the sake of the salvation of your soul. Plus, what kind of example are you showing to other believers – that sinning is okay?

However, I know you may object to me and state what a great person you are and how many nice things you do. However, no one is justified before God for the good things they have done in their life, because there is no one who is without sin and no one can reach God’s standard of holiness on their own. The only thing that one can do is fall on the knees and pray and ask God for mercy and forgiveness, admitting one’s own lack of worth and one’s sinfulness. As a Christian, one comes to God with a repentant heart to plead with God for forgiveness and ask God to give her strength to turn away from sin. However, one cannot repent of something if they believe they are not sinning and actually saying that they know better for themselves what is sin and what not. This is actually the great human dilemma. We can rebel against God and claim that we do not need forgiveness and repentance for our sins and/or tell God that we know better than Him what sin is and what is not because we want to be happy. Or, we may ask God for mercy and forgiveness and ask Him to help us turn away from sin knowing that we are weak and this may make us feel quite unhappy. The latter is not only belief in God, but also trust in God that His ways and understanding are better than ours even if this may cost us some temporary pain or discomfort. Of course, you can always have your choice. I realize sometimes it’s almost impossible to change, almost like the good religious but very rich people and Pharisees who did not want to give up what they had and follow Jesus so they may be born from the Spirit of God.

[85. twilley said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 30:]

85

BI, #84:

"sin is sin and my momentary feelings of happiness do not justify and condone my sin. I am responsible for my actions and for all the emotional and spiritual damage they will bring to others, and the others’ willful cooperation in sin does not excuse me."

I most assuredly agree with you that momentary happiness does not justify sin. I disagree with you in that I do not think God holds committed love between two gay people to be a sin.

"If your own criterion is happiness before God, then, you’re not serving the God that I know from the Bible."

This is not my criterion. Choosing my own personal happiness over God's will would be cowardly and wrong. I do not feel it is productive to tell other people what they do and do not think about God.

"My criterion is love, but love that does not make us necessarily happy but love that makes us holy and moves us closer to God."

This is where I think have not understood my experience. My relationship with my partner, and my acceptance and understanding of my own sexuality, has brought me closer to God than anything else in my life ever has. I'm not disagreeing with you--we should all strive as Christians to become holy, to become closer to God. What I am witnessing to you is that it is through my acceptance of and joy in my sexuality that God teaches me holiness. Accept this testimony of God's power if you will, reject it if you will.

"In my opinion, God has clearly revealed in nature and in His written word, the Bible, that man and female are to become one, only."

That's fine. I disagree, and I accept the fact that we disagree on our interpretations of scripture and nature.

"However, I know you may object to me and state what a great person you are and how many nice things you do. However, no one is justified before God for the good things they have done in their life, because there is no one who is without sin and no one can reach God’s standard of holiness on their own."

I would not object on these grounds--a Christian would be a fool to think that just being a good person is what brings you to God. No human can ever be truly good. Again, it might be best to ask me my opinions on holiness instead of telling me what you think they are.

"We can rebel against God and claim that we do not need forgiveness and repentance for our sins and/or tell God that we know better than Him what sin is and what is not because we want to be happy."

You seem to think that I am setting up my own will or my personal happiness above God's will. This is untrue. God's guidance in my life has led me to accept my sexuality and to live in a relationship with my partner that draws us both closer to God. I am not interested in something as trivial as being happy; I'm interested in finding joy. If God showed me that my love was sinful, that it drew me away from Him, then I would follow his will. He shows me the opposite every single day.

"I realize sometimes it’s almost impossible to change, almost like the good religious but very rich people and Pharisees who did not want to give up what they had and follow Jesus so they may be born from the Spirit of God."

God has not given me any evidence that it is God's will for me to change. God's working in my life has led me to accept my sexuality as a thing that brings me closer to Him.

I can testify all I want of how God works in my life, but no one has to believe me. I am glad, though, for this unexpected opportunity to tell what God has done for me. Maybe someone will read it and gain something from it.

Since I have come out, I cannot TELL you the number of people I have talked to about my faith. I cannot explain to you the number of gay friends I have who are happy to hear about God, and in whose lives God has used me in completely cool ways, usually in spite of my own bumbling. Far more and far more honestly than I ever talked to about God while I was in the closet. Me and my partner? We pray together now on a regular basis. Just today God answered some huge prayers of ours... and puts people in our way all the time to give us just what we need to grow. I have no other explanation for the things that are happening to us right now, every day, than that God has brought us to this exact spot on the earth at this exact time, and he's doing some things that he wants to get done with us. I'm not saying that we follow perfectly, but just that at this point, it's pretty clear where God's leading.

[86. kevin said the following at 9:38 PM on Nov 30:]

86

Thanks, Ted, I don't believe in global warming anymore.

[87. BI said the following at 11:13 PM on Nov 30:]

87

twilley, 85:

I honestly do not know what kind of God you are talking about when you say you believe in God. That's certainly not the God of the Bible who says that a marital union can be only between a man and a woman. If you want to justify yourself in the public eye, as you like Christians, that's fine, but God condemns what you do as sin. The fact that Jesus talks only about such kind of marital union but does not say anything about same-sex unions, does not condone same-sex unions, but just the opposite, as Jesus also believes in the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Bible says, get knowledge, as this issue is not a matter of interpretation - there is no ground for it anywhere in the Bible. Certain kind of love is meant only for a marital union between a male and female so they can produce an offspring and be spiritually united and complete. I had another experience with prejudiced women - they thought all men are sexually driven beasts full of lust who they can easily manipulate and if this did not work out they concluded that these men were either gay or did not love them enough (it's obvious what kind of love they wanted).

You still have not answered my last paragraph from the previous post. Do you know the people in the OT had all kinds of idols which they worshipped by actually doing hateful practices like orgies, killing of babies, etc. It seems to me that your God is nothing more than an idol that you worship so he can condone your sin. Of course, you are free to choose.

[88. twilley said the following at 11:30 AM on Dec 1:]

88

BI, #87:

"I honestly do not know what kind of God you are talking about when you say you believe in God. That's certainly not the God of the Bible who says that a marital union can be only between a man and a woman."

The sense that I am getting from this section is that you feel that you wholly understand the issue of homosexuality in the Bible, believe that I am wrong, and believe that you are justified in telling me that I am wrong. That's fine. I have a different understanding of the situation. My understanding is that we have different interpretations of the scriptures, and different understandings of God's will towards homosexuality, and that that's alright. I affirm your right to interpret the scriptures as you see fit, and respect your interpretations as valid. I believe we could have a more productive discussion if you would also recognize my right to interpret the scriptures as I understand them.

"If you want to justify yourself in the public eye, as you like Christians, that's fine, but God condemns what you do as sin."

I am not interested in justifying myself in the public eye, but am trying to be honest about my beliefs. I disagree with you, and do not believe God condemns same-sex partnerships as sinful.

"If you want to know what the Bible says, get knowledge, as this issue is not a matter of interpretation - there is no ground for it anywhere in the Bible."

I have read the Bible numerous times, and I have read huge numbers of sources on this topic, from every imaginable viewpoint. I disagree with you and do believe that scholars can honestly have differing interpretations on this issue in the Bible.

"I had another experience with prejudiced women - they thought all men are sexually driven beasts full of lust who they can easily manipulate and if this did not work out they concluded that these men were either gay or did not love them enough (it's obvious what kind of love they wanted)."

I am sorry that you had a bad experience with a woman, but I am unsure what bearing this has on our discussion. The only thing I can work out is that you are calling me prejudiced, which I find to be rude and uncalled for.

"You still have not answered my last paragraph from the previous post."

My apologies for the oversight, I thought I had gone through the important points, but it seems I missed something.

"Do you know the people in the OT had all kinds of idols which they worshipped by actually doing hateful practices like orgies, killing of babies, etc."

Yes. I have read the Old Testament and am aware of these practices.

"It seems to me that your God is nothing more than an idol that you worship so he can condone your sin. Of course, you are free to choose."

I disagree. I could write more about my testimony, or tell you more about what God is doing in my life or how I came to know God, but I get the sense that you are not listening. What I understand you are doing in this section is setting up a division. What you want to say is that I am not one of you, that I do not worship the same God that you do. That everything I worship is evil, and that you consider me the moral equivalent of someone who sacrifices babies. Then you set up a false choice between the evil you have outlined and the good which you possess but have excluded me from.

Sounds like: http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/11/strategic-mockery.html

I'm not interested in these divisions. We worship the same God, and we try to understand God as well as we can. I'm not interested in insulting you or in comparing you to someone who murders children. That's not important to me. I respect your interpretation of scripture, and I ask you to find some respect for me and mine.

The reason I commented on your original post was to tell you that you were going off topic, and trafficking in stereotypes about gay people which I don't find productive or godly. And I stand by that assessment.

[89. Samantha said the following at 3:06 PM on Dec 1:]

89

twilley#88,"My understanding is that we have different interpretations of the scriptures, and different understandings of God's will towards homosexuality, and that that's alright."

It's not "alright" because it's wrong. Thinking that God believes that something is okay doesn't make it true. God doesn't like homosexuality no matter what you think and that's a fact of life.

[90. BI said the following at 3:23 PM on Dec 1:]

90

twilley,

Words are just words. You say you worship the same God as I do and yet this is not true and I do not worship your God. The God that I worship comes to believers only when they repent of their sins and does not condone some sins over others. I have not chosen who God is – I have chosen only to accept him, and I have not chosen to have two sexes in life and nature. I am not being rude with you – I am giving you analogies which you did not like very much. No sin is justified in God’s eyes no matter on what scale we will use to grade it, and one cannot receive mercy if they do not repent of one’s sins. How can a blind man/woman be cured if s/he thinks s/he is not blind? All I am trying to do is help you. Please do not mistake my passion and desire to help for other kinds of feelings or emotion.

It is easy to be nice with others when things are going well and everything is fine. It is easy to be nice and behave well when you know you will get a reward for this as others will often respond with kindness to you as well. However, when things get rough, when you have no job or you are about to lose your job, when you have a family to feed and the bills keep piling up and you don’t know how you are going to make it another day, when your loved ones have broken your heart, and when your faithful friends have abandoned you, then you do not have good fruits to show off, but you desperately need someone/something to give you inner strength to hold on and continue to perform diligently your duties and still find time to be kind with others and love others even when it hurts so much. What you need is the Spirit of the true God inside of you, not good works that you can boast of so you can justify your sins in the public eye. It is like two young people who claim they love each other forever, and then the years pass by, their first love wears off and their true character is revealed when the testing comes, and is up to them to make sure that their love withstands these trials and tribulations. What will mature tter in the end for these people is not the opinions of others but if their love is everlasting and they are still together. That is the same with God – what will matter in the end is if the Spirit of God is still inside of you. But first you have to receive it and this comes only when you repent of your sins and ask God for mercy and forgiveness. I do not make it with catchy phrases, that’s between you and God – I can only testify and offer you the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness – with the sins done by men and the forgiveness found in Jesus, and then you can make your own choice.

[91. Jim H said the following at 3:26 PM on Dec 1:]

91

As I ponder this climate change debacle, it struck me that the way the scientists behaved is the antithesis of real science – not so much because of the content of the data but because of the secrecy and unwillingness to be open with the data. That is not real science, but rather raw unadulterated AGENDA.

Richard Feynman, in my view, expressed the best description of real, HONEST, science in his “Cargo Cult Science Speech” from 1974.

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

It seems that many scientists involved in climate change research have sold their scientific soul and departed from principles of “bending over backwards utter scientific integrity.”

[92. BI said the following at 11:03 PM on Dec 1:]

92

Ted,

Why do governments think that forcing reductions in CO2 emissions will automatically lead to better and cleaner technologies employed by businesses? Why not businesses come up with new vicious, much more detrimental technologies – e.g. new chemical or toxic waste that will be hidden somewhere in a faraway part of the world that will cause much greater and more lasting damage to the environment? When governments ban something, people usually find a way around the ban. Also, it is much more costly to maintain a ban and other undesired consequences than to find a way to encourage new kinds of behavior and practices. Hence, if governments want new cleaner technologies, they should focus more on encouraging and promoting such technologies. Otherwise, what kind of choices do companies who depend on CO2 emissions have – to lay off people (as if it is not enough as it is) or to find a way around the ban in order to keep up with their production capacity? In general, I do not mind breathing cleaner air in the bigger cities, however, we need companies and businesses employing cleaner technologies and keeping their workers, and certainly not closing all production and restricting existing technologies.

BTW, some environmentalists claim that the world is soon going to run out of oil. If that’s true, we will not need to worry about CO2 emissions at all. Businesses and companies will have to change due to their limited resource. When something is limited, the price shoots up and a lot of companies have to move to another technology. However, no government does want to engage with this issue with facts and data. Instead, if they artificially reduce the CO2 emissions, they somehow promote conserving the current supply of world oil. This is a good way to make money during an economic crisis using environment as a pretext (I specifically reference the proposed legislation for carbon trading) and indirectly taxing businesses which rely on oil. And, yet, we do not even know if such measures will do nearly enough in reducing CO2 emissions and pollution in the environment, besides collecting huge amounts of money for the governments. It seems to me that the governments’ incentive is to collect money by any means in the short run, and not to really give proper incentives for long-lasting changes toward better and cleaner technologies without businesses having to lay off people or go out of business.

[93. twilley said the following at 7:47 AM on Dec 2:]

93

Samantha, #89:

I fully respect your beliefs, and am not interested in fighting you. We disagree with this issue, and I'm comfortable with that.

[94. twilley said the following at 8:14 AM on Dec 2:]

94

BI, #90:

Thank you for your offer of help. I believe you when you say that you are being passionate and that you desire to help me.

I hope you have a good day.

[95. Patrik said the following at 2:43 AM on Dec 4:]

95

Let me as an outsider, give a comment on what I see here. I am a European, have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, and am a Christian. (Contrary to what some of you may believe, this is not a self-contradiction :-). I now work as an engineer and do not do environmental research.

I have read some of Boundless' articles and found them encouraging. I have not commented on blogs before, but I now feel moved to make an attempt.

It strucks me in as a bit odd that of the comments I see here, on Ted Slater's original blog entry, very few relate to his major point, namely that data has been manipulated. Ted started off by saying "So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?"

I challenge Ted's conclusion. If you check the underlaying data for global climate change in general, or, for the non-specialist, some follow-up articles to the articles Ted link to, they do not support his interpretation that "scientists at the influential Climatic Research Unit made up data and manipulated it to support their agenda-driven and predetermined conclusions."

See for example:

Climate change scientist at centre of leaked email row 'absolutely' stands by his findings

Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague

I will try to look at this tread a for a few days to see if there is any response to my post. Then I will leave.

Wish you all the best.

[96. BI said the following at 10:56 AM on Dec 4:]

96

Patrik,

Thanks for your post! I'll admit I don't know (as there is another post on this topic). However, we all know that global temperatures and the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere have been rising rapidly for the last several decades. What my main suspicion is what the cause and effect relationship is between these two events. Which is causing which, or they both might be caused or linked to some other factor. I have no doubt that there is manmade global pollution but are CO2 gases the worst? What about other kind of pollution - e.g. toxic waste released by chemical plants? Why is no one talking about these things any more?

[97. Ted Slater said the following at 11:49 AM on Dec 4:]

97

Thanks for visiting, Patrik. No need to visit and leave; you're welcome to stay and join in this and other conversations. :-)

The second article you point to has a colleague accusing Phil Jones -- one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming -- of "making an error of judgment." That implies that Jones simply made a mistake. Oops. I question, though, how Jones' encouragement to destroy data and prohibit free discussion of this issue can be a simple mistake or "error of judgment."

Jones said in an e-mail: "I've just completed Mike's trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to hide the decline." That sounds like manipulation to me, to be honest.

Elsewhere he wrote, "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone." In another e-mail he wrote, "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Why delete this data, and these e-mails, unless he has something to hide?

Jones wrote, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" There he is again, prohibiting research that challenges his already-formed conclusions about global warming.

And what is the goal of promoting this man-caused global warming crisis? The chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made is clear recently: higher taxes, monitoring people's energy use, and monitoring what people eat. Control and invasion of privacy -- that's what the politicians and bureaucrats and globalists want, and certain scientists seems oddly more than happy to skew the data to support the need for such tax increases and control.

I continue to maintain that this global warming fear-mongering is not about protecting the environment. It's about making lots of money off the backs of normal people, and controlling the minute details of their lives. The criminals no longer hide in the alleys; they speak from behind UN podiums.

[98. Ted Slater said the following at 12:09 PM on Dec 4:]

98

BI (#96), you wrote that "we all know that global temperatures and the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere have been rising rapidly for the last several decades."

I'll have to disagree with that premise. The truth is that the earth has actually cooled down over the past decade (as has solar activity, interestingly enough). And these facts frustrate those who earn a living promoting global warming anxiety.

I also have to challenge your proposition that CO2 is "pollution" similar to "toxic waste released by chemical plants." They're different. CO2 is plant food; toxic waste is, well, toxic.

[99. BI said the following at 1:12 PM on Dec 4:]

99

Ted, 98

Since this is not my profession and I am not a scientist and I am not knowledgeable enough, I try to avoid taking extreme positions. Hence, I simply try to raise my suspicions without undermining the work of so many scientists whose work I may not fully understand. You have posed good questions and it is always good to have confronting ideas so we can find out the truth eventually. When dealing with such complicated global events, it’s really hard for me to attack someone without any reliable data or evidence – e.g. when you said that the earth is cooling while most scientists would give you plenty of facts and data for the contrary. And yes, I do not call CO2 a pollutant, just the opposite – I was trying to ask the question if actually other pollutants are more responsible for the rise in global pollution and perhaps global temperatures. In addition, if I believe continually in conspiracy theories about everything, I’ll doubt every single piece of news that comes out in the news or in the science field of research, I’ll even doubt that Boundless has some very secret agenda, and probably become schizophrenic. I know such a colleague and it’s really hard to talk with him (I was actually defending global warming in some way just for the sake of argument), although I enjoy that he never takes for granted and asks questions that others do not ask. After all, the secular world leaders also do care to find the truth of how to best take care of the world as this is all they have in this life despite of the competing interests for money and power, and they do not have any other reward in heaven.

[100. BDB said the following at 2:48 PM on Dec 4:]

100

Patrik (#95) while all the data the scientists have may not have been made up fraudulently, it's also clear that they attempted to suppress any data that disagreed with their conclusions.

In short, they engaged in profesional misconduct.

In the U.S., if a prosecutor does this, the defendant has his conviction vacated and the prosecutors are personally faced with misconduct fines and/or criminal prosecution.

If an accounting firm destroys documents, the peopl who shredded the documents can go to jail for obstruction of justice. This has happened durinf various U.S. financial scandals. Again, it's professional misconduct that has been criminalized.

The main concern is that these scientists have been preventing other true data from coming to the forefront. Does that data explain why global temperatures stopped rising over the last 10 years? I don't know. If we gave the contrary researchers a few million dollars to research the question could they find it? Maybe.

What is clear is that all the rush to impose climate-change costs on the developed world and transfer weath to the developing world was an agenda based on fraud. Until the fraud is sorted out, world governments should not do anything t engage in this kind of economic suicide.

And frankly, if the climate models didn't predict a decade-long cooling trend, it's clear that there's something wrong with the assumptions underlying those models. They MUST be wrong, otherwise they would have predicted this. They didn't predict it, the models are wrong.

From a public policy perspective, it is terribly, terribly foolish to make policy decisions based on what are clearly flawed models.

[1. Sarah P. said the following at 3:21 PM on Nov 24:]

1

Oil prices. What really caused the price of gas to rise so high just before the presidential elections?

[2. Josh said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 24:]

2

Sorry, but there are hundreds (thousands?) of professionals working independently who support the global climate change hypothesis. The kind of conspiracy you are talking about is simply not possible. Whether or not pockets of research are fabricated, there are still thousands of isolated research projects that provide evidence for the same conclusion.

Seriously, it's not like all the scientists in the world huddle together inside their volcano fortresses, plotting to deceive the world and make billions of dollars.

[3. Ted Slater said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 24:]

3

Josh (#2) -- and there are tens of thousands of professionals working independently who oppose the AGW hypothesis.

I'm just stating the facts: The most influential body of global warming scientists has been committing fraud, to promote their political agenda. Their phony research directly influenced the UN's IPCC report. Their house of cards is collapsing, as it should.

I should have affirmed one more thing: integrity and objectivity in science.

[4. Brittanie said the following at 4:11 PM on Nov 24:]

4

Actually, Ted, global warming is a fact.

"...the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" 2 Peter 3:10b

:-)

[5. Beth said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 24:]

5

Can we get back to dating and marriage?

[6. farmer Tom said the following at 4:34 PM on Nov 24:]

6

I've been waiting for this thread, Ted.

So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?

And the answer to the question is,.....

The very same group of people who knowingly and with forethought made up the data for anthropogenic global warming–climate-change, have been making it up in the arena of human origins for the last 150 years.

We have heard the term scientific consensus so often it the last 5 years that we have become numb to its meaning.

Read this quote from Wikipedia, and remember how often we heard that it was scientific consensus that there was anthropogenic global warming. And they made it up.

Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.

So the next time some lame brain evolutionist tries to tell you that evolution is a fact because of scientific consensus, mock them, laugh in their face, call them (the Biblical term) a fool, then suggest to them that when the earth actually starts warming you will listen to their opinion about another hoax perpetuated by the scientific community.

And take note of the fact that these people who committed fraud, made every effort to hinder or even stop peer review of their work.

from Jay Currie "The Dirt"

Evidence of an organized subversion of the peer review process

Update: 1089318616.txt

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Cheers
Phil

#1051230500
“Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications? – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?”

Evidence of the black listing of a scientific journal for purely political reasons

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Next time some lame brain starts spewing bile about ID because it's "never been published in a peer reviewed journal", just sign their comedy act up for a stint in the local standup joint. They are laughing stocks, they deserve your scorn.

[7. Befuddled said the following at 4:51 PM on Nov 24:]

7

This is all very interesting. Ted, you may be right in your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is bogus, but I'm not sure I understand your belief in this agenda behind global warming.

Scientists are spreading lies in order for the government to take more money from us? This hardly seems legitimate. It feels more like a hatred toward taxes than serious scientific inquiry.

[8. Jim H. said the following at 4:56 PM on Nov 24:]

8

It will be interesting to see how many posters will express their continued determination to be sheep to this ever more obvious scam.

[9. farmer Tom said the following at 5:16 PM on Nov 24:]

9

7. Befuddled said,

Befuddled is definitely a good tag line.

Their goal is not just to take more money from you,(although that is a side benefit), it is to eliminate you. Their desire is to control the world, for the elite. To, as Ted Turner said, eliminate 2/3 of the world population, eliminate Constitutional Representative government and establish a global cabal which controls the natural resources, establishes morality based on the proclivities of those elite, grants favor to the rich and famous, all the while attempting to eliminate the "underclasses", "the useless eaters".

[10. Jethro said the following at 6:03 PM on Nov 24:]

10

But Ted,

The evidence for creationism is inordinately more flimsy than the evidence for climate change and yet you continue to believe in the former. What gives?

[11. Chris said the following at 6:05 PM on Nov 24:]

11

My Fellow ACSBAGMSs,

I regret to inform you that our plans for world domination through global warming theory (plan #4a, if you recall) have failed. For years we have kept an eye on an obscure religious blog editor, thinking him only an annoying voice. It turns out that he's been on to us all this time, and now some new evidence has proven him right. Some may debate the validity of these claims, but the World Organization for Determining Fraudulent Evidence and Ending All Debates Forever has ruled against us.

As you all know, we were very, very close to utterly destroying the sovereignty of the United States. Once the US fell, the UN (under our control, of course) was to take over all government functions, tax all income at 100%, throw all religious believers in jail, and destroy all business...all in the name of "protecting the environment." (Yes, yes, we all get the joke.)

However, rather than let this setback deter and demoralize us, let us use it to steel our resolve. We still have many on going projects that will soon bear fruit, such as:

1) Evolutionary theory. From the beginning, we've seen the ability of this theory to cause a rise in homosexuality, abortion, and murder, and a decline in church attendance. Truly, it is a powerful tool for our secret political agenda.

2) The health care debate. Luckily, we've managed to keep hidden the fact that cancer, heart disease, other "illnesses" do not exist. The few people who actually figured out that the government causes these conditions are considered crackpots.

In an effort to ensure their "health," people are gladly giving over complete and total control of their lives to the government.

(On a side note, we should keep monitoring people who refuse vaccinations out of health concerns. We must not let a large portion of the population go without their yearly mind control injections.)

3) Education: Thanks to the complete and utter removal of the Christian god from public schools in the US, crime and war in the entire world has gone up. Very soon now the sheeply masses will grant governments (controlled by us, of course) total police powers to protect them.

So my fellow Atheist Communist Socialist Baby-Aborting Gay Marriage Supporters (ACSBAGMSs), let us not lose hope. One day the world will be ours.

[12. Lia said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 24:]

12

One group of scientists' internal emails on how to interpret and present data on climate change does not represent an indictment of global warming on the whole.

And really, I'm with Befuddled (7). What do scientists have to gain by falsifying evidence of climate change besides working towards a greener future?

[13. BDB said the following at 7:22 PM on Nov 24:]

13

Lia (#12) wrote:

>>And really, I'm with Befuddled (7). What do scientists have to gain by falsifying evidence of climate change besides working towards a greener future?<<

So far, it looks like lust for power. Power is intoxicating, and corrupting. The U.S. Government was structured specifcally to make sure no faction could easily take control of everything. By spreading out the power - especially with the Senate - it's very very hard for any one group to impose its ideology on any other group.

Make no mistake, those on the far left enjoy a beautiful environment. And they want that no matter the cost. If the cost is wiping out dirty jobs, like coal mining and manufacturing, that's OK with them. Much of the growth in the Asian economies, including China and India, comes from those dirty manufacturing jobs that Americans legislated to make too expensive. That's why the air in Southern California is sooo much cleaner, and the smog in Beijing is now terrible.

So, when those on the Left say that they want to impose environmental and labor regulations on other countries that manufacture products sold in the U.S., let it be perfectly clear in your mind that what they are doing is legislating their morality onto other people groups and cultures.

[14. Michael V said the following at 8:36 PM on Nov 24:]

14

I'm also a little lost on how this big conspiracy to take all our money is supposed to work.

Can we skip all the conspiracy theories and go back to the part where we talk about Christianity?

[15. Ted Slater said the following at 9:14 PM on Nov 24:]

15

Michael V (#14) -- It's not a "conspiracy." It's proposed legislation. Google "Cap and Trade" -- that'll give you an idea how certain bureaucrats/politicians are capitalizing on this global warming alarmism to take more of our hard-earned income.

[16. edwige said the following at 10:40 PM on Nov 24:]

16

# 5 Beth >>Can we get back to dating and marriage?<<

Lol!! I second that!!

[17. Jethro said the following at 10:48 PM on Nov 24:]

17

BDB (#13),

"So, when those on the Left say that they want to impose environmental and labor regulations on other countries that manufacture products sold in the U.S., let it be perfectly clear in your mind that what they are doing is legislating their morality onto other people groups and cultures."

You mean like when Christians legislate their morality and say that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex only?

[18. edwige said the following at 10:55 PM on Nov 24:]

18

# 11. Chris... funny =)!

[19. Sheridan said the following at 12:13 AM on Nov 25:]

19

Mr Slater,

I'm so glad that you do bring up these issues on Boundless!
Over here in Oz, We have a few journalists going nuts over this email scam. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun has been publishing the emails, and is trying his hardest to get it out to mainstream media. Even though Andrew has a fair bit of clout in media circles, it is amazing how many media outlets REFUSE to even mention the emails.
In Australia things are really getting heated in political circles. Our government is trying to push carbon tax, while the opposition party is divided (half of the party thinks climate change is a scam.
More and more scientists are speaking up, and a small group of journalists are fighting like crazy to get the real evidence out there.
What scares me is how people are not listening.

If you want to check out Andrew Bolt's stuff:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

[20. Leah said the following at 12:44 AM on Nov 25:]

20

Josh, I think you should google "climate change emails". Outright proof that scientists have been conspiring to hide data which does not match up with their hypotheses, and twisting that which can be twisted.

To Lia (12) and Befuddled (7): scientists gain money from the people, corporations and governments who fund them and who want them to come up with these climate change results. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson who used to work for NASA said "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly... As a scientist I remain skeptical" and IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh said that warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
The scientists may also stand to gain power given to them by governments and politicians.

Of course I'm sure many scientists are genuinely convinced of global warming. But obviously some of them keep their doubts silent for fear of losing funding, and then there are many who will speak their doubts too.

Jethro (10) - most Christians would not purport to scientifically support creation. While there is much evidence against what is commonly known as evolution (I say that because there are some aspects of evolution which are quite observably true), there is no scientific proof for creation. Sure, there's evidence against evolution sometimes, and there's evidence that might suggest creation, but we do not suggest that we can scientifically prove creation. We believe in creation because that's what the bible says happened. If you don't believe the bible, well, that's a whole different debate which I don't think is worth going into here.

Global warming or climate change, however, is purely scientific. It is a claim made by scientists, who claim science backs up the hypothesis, when in fact it doesn't and they've been fudging a lot of their results and hiding data that does not agree with them.

Beth (5) since when was Boundless about dating and marriage? Please show me, because last I checked, Boundless' taglines were "Bringing Focus to the Single Years" and "Extreme Conversation Starters for young adults". Their "About Us" section talks about navigating the season between leaving the home of your youth and establishing your own home; and "bringing your gifts, talents and Christian worldview to bear on your whole life". It's a vague, broad spectrum. Hardly dating/marriage-specific.

I think this topic would be especially interesting to science and politics students.

farmer Tom - your insane comments are giving normal climate change sceptics a bad name. The climate change scientists want to eliminate us? Get real. In the words of the classic Captain Jack Sparrow, you're being "more than less than unhelpful".

[21. Michael V said the following at 6:48 AM on Nov 25:]

21

You're implying that a consortium of international scientists are manufacturing information about global warming in a plan with the U.S. government to create alarm and take the money of U.S. citizens, and then use that money for countermeasures against something... they know doesn't exist.

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory. It also doesn't add up.

So again... can we get back to Christianity?

[22. eric langdon said the following at 7:10 AM on Nov 25:]

22

Lia

Over 7 billion dollars of US taxpayer money per year in grants go to universities and others for AGW research. If due to lies and fraud this money dries up many of those scientists and researchers will have to find other sources of funding for their livelyhood. They wont easily give up this government teet.

[23. twilley said the following at 7:50 AM on Nov 25:]

23

Ted, #15:

I understand that you don't find the science which supports global warming convincing. And I understand that you don't support cap and trade programs, and feel they will put money in the wrong peoples' pockets...

But I still can't understand how these two things are related... Even if some scientist did falsify information to add to the consensus around global warming, that scientist would not benefit in any way from a cap and trade program, would she?

How do these two points become a conspiracy?

[24. Chris said the following at 9:32 AM on Nov 25:]

24

Michael V writes (#21):

Yeah, that's a conspiracy theory. It also doesn't add up.

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you! Obviously, you've been brain washed by our communist indoctrination centers learned some critical thinking.

Oh, and please remember to get your mind control injection flu shot this year.

[25. Ted Slater said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 25:]

25

Clearly, more information is necessary to catch some of you up to speed on the **anthropogenic** global warming fraud, and why this is an issue of Christian stewardship.

Here are some excerpts from the Washington Examiner that help explain the situation:

The more governments, businesses, and media outlets you can convince that man-made global warming is a serious threat, the more these institutions will invest in climate change studies, solutions, and policies....

Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis. We shouldn't be surprised, then, to see them putting their pet cause ahead of scientific standards. For instance, climate scientist Giorgio Filippo in a 2000 e-mail wrote about the drafting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment of climate research: "Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent, which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."

These are the scientists who drive climate policy....

If the catastrophic-man-made-climate-change hypothesis melted down, these scientists would lose their funding....

And scientists aren't the only ones with skin in the game. Take manufacturing and transportation giant Siemens, for instance, whom Manning was wooing. In 2006, the company joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has been a key lobbyist for the sort of greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme at the heart of the climate bill currently before Congress. Siemens and other members of USCAP have invested billions in buying up greenhouse gas credits, alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, and carbon capture and sequestration (the attempt to trap CO2 underground). E-mails show CRU scientists pushing corporate donors to fund their climate science as a way of advancing carbon capture.

Yes, it's difficult and embarrassing to realize that you've been duped into believing that humans are responsible for a kind of global warming that will destroy the planet. It's difficult to believe that those we've considered beyond corruption -- environmental scientists, for example -- would sell out for a bit of proverbial porridge. It's difficult to believe that those in government who represent us would use this fake data as the reason to raise our taxes ("cap and trade") and control our lives ("agenda 21").

But the facts are there, for all to see: planet-killing AGW is a fraud, pushed by hypocritical profiteers who care only about money and power: consider their jet trips, their wasteful homes, their expanding waistlines.

For the sake of truth and Christian stewardship, let's see beyond this hysterical AGW fear-mongering and invest our energies into something productive.

[26. BDB said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 25:]

26

Jethro (#17) - yes, I'm saying that those on the left are engaged in a pattern and practice of trying to force their views on others - the exact criticism they level at Conservative Christians involved in politics.

Someday I may end up hoping the Libertarians win.

[27. Nancy said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 25:]

27

What do you make of the visible changes the planet is undergoing? My sister climbed Kilimanjaro 2 years ago, and the snow/ice levels were at their lowest in recorded history . . . and they've shrunk more since then. Same for polar ice caps. At the same time, there are millions more carbon-emitting cars on the road in India & China, and hundreds of new coal-burning power plants being built in China. I think it's disingenuous to blame *all* the environmental changes on natural cycles/fluctuations. Surely just these few factors I've named must have *some* impact.

Or maybe the scientists are exaggerating because most of us are lazy, and won't change our habits unless we think there's a crisis . . .

[28. BDB said the following at 11:06 AM on Nov 25:]

28

Look, there is much in the "climate change" debate that is ideological. There may be some scientific evidence that thing are being affected by things like CO2 emissions, though I'm not convinced the models are right.

The SOLUTIONS offered are all nakedly ideological. They all demand that developed nations destroy their economy and transfer their technical knowledge and wealth to poorer nations. There is absolutely no biological or climatalogical science involved in those solutions. That's just pure leftist ideology.

From a scientific standpoint, plant more trees. Develop nuclear power like France. If you believe that CO2 emissions are the problem, there are LOTS of scientifically valid solutions that don't involve doing economic damage to developed economies.

But the leftists are all demanding solutions that destroy jobs. That is not anything close to science.

[29. nickinkansas said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 25:]

29

Where does Al Gore stand on all of this?

[30. Daniel said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 25:]

30

I always thought manmade global warming was comical... we can't even predict the weather right. Human arrogance is funny. Ignorance is even more hilarious, like some of the people who believe that no one has conspirative motives against them in a century that had Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc... etc...

[31. Ted Slater said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 25:]

31

Nancy (#27) -- "global warming" isn't responsible for what's happening at Kilimanjaro. Deforestation is responsible. One researcher explained:

"Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”

A climatologist further explained:

"The greenhouse industry say ‘global warming,’ but then they would say that, wouldn’t they? The only problem with that knee-jerk explanation is that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of Kilimanjaro. Satellites have been measuring temperature since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters altitude, and they show no tropospheric warming in that area. None.”

Regarding the ice caps -- they melt during that hemisphere's summer, and freeze back up during that hemisphere's winter. Some parts warm a bit more, and some parts cool a bit more. In fact, the caps are not shrinking, but GROWING, and not growing warmer but growing COLDER.

Even if things warm up eventually, why do we assume it's caused by humans letting off more CO2 or methane or water vapor? Why do we never hear about the effects of solar activity? Because the sun can't be taxed, and the sun can't be controlled.

And why do we assume a warmer global climate will be a bad thing? I'd argue that increased greenhouse gases -- water vapor and CO2 -- are actually GOOD for plant life, and therefore good for the earth's inhabitants.

[32. Befuddled said the following at 11:59 AM on Nov 25:]

32

Ted, I have no problem admitting to being "duped into believing that humans are responsible for a kind of global warming that will destroy the planet," if that is indeed the case. (This chain of emails, while intriguing, does not prove this in any fashion; it only demonstrates a degree of assumed corruption.)

What I do have a problem with is this bogus idea that the scientists are hijacking American policy to increase tax dollars for their research. What is this? Something out of Scooby-Doo?

Also, your editorial from the Washington Examiner is just as agenda-driven as you perceive these IPCC scientists to be. What goes around, comes around, I suppose.

[33. Samantha said the following at 12:03 PM on Nov 25:]

33

I think Ted deserves a lot of respect. He stands by what the evidence shows, even when others don't agree. He doesn't change his mind based on what's popular. How many people can say that?

I never bought into this man-made climate change rubbish. I was only ten years old when all that Y2K nonsense was going on, but I remember thinking how funny it was that everyone was getting so worked up. When the global-warming hysteria started I thought,"I wonder what it'll be next?" Apparently it's Swine Flu, next decade it'll be something else.

Yes, Christians need to take care of God's earth but NOT at the expense of those who live here. Global Warming is such a first world problem. It's what people who want to appear to make a difference without actually doing anything think about.

What if had put all the money that went to saving the world from natural heat cycles and instead put it towards solving world hunger?

[34. BDB said the following at 12:12 PM on Nov 25:]

34

Nancy (#27) wrote:

>>What do you make of the visible changes the planet is undergoing?<<

The planet seems to have been warming up...ever since the last ice age.

[35. Matt Kaufman said the following at 12:28 PM on Nov 25:]

35

Let me suggest another Christian angle on this issue. The angle takes a bit to develop, so be patient.

In Ted's comment (#25), he quotes an author commenting that "Climate scientists derive both their sense of purpose and their paychecks from a perceived climate crisis." That "sense of purpose" part deserves more attention.

Many of us tend to believe that whatever we do professionally is the most important thing in the world. Few of us would put it that way out loud, and many haven't even consciously thought about it that way. But all of us can understand it.
It's just a natural inclination. It reflects both where our attention is and (no small thing) the hunger of our egos.

Now put yourself in the place of a climate scientist. You're encouraged to believe that your work is about nothing less than saving the world. Imagine how intoxicating that is. You don't consciously desire to spread falsehood, but your overwhelming impulse is to interpret all the evidence in a way that elevates the importance of what you do -- something that gives a sense of meaning to what you do every day, far beyond the rewards that any paycheck can convey. Anyone who argues that perhaps the fate of the world doesn't hinge on what you do for a living is therefore diminishing you and your work --the whole purpose of your life.

Which brings us to the Christian angle. Well, almost.

Before anyone thinks I'm about to suggest that Christians are immune to the same temptation, for get it. Some get into fighting "climate change" themselves: They want to feel they're saving the world too. Others plunge into other secular causes which they mistakenly approach with religious fervor. I'd argue that the recent effort to spread "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, without regard for the realities of the region, was one such case. There are all kinds of other examples where Christians have gone astray.

All that said, Christianity itself (as distinct from individual Christians) does stress that what we do is nowhere near as important as what God does. I must decrease that Christ may increase.

To the extent that we internalize that attitude, our felt need to build up what we do will diminish. And we can see all the more clearly how people in various professions -- especially people without faith in God -- will tend to magnify what they do, to find a sense of meaning in their lives to feed the natural longing for meaning that can only truly be fulfilled by God himself.

All this is true, BTW, regardless of what you think of the evidence for man-made global warming. I'm not really into the issue: Though what I know about it inclines me to be skeptical, I'm quite open to empirical evidence to change my mind. But it'd take a lot more than an invocation of scientific consensus to convince me. I'm too aware of the very human tendencies which afflict scientists not one bit less than the rest of us -- and which may afflict some of them more. Whenever I hear some variant of "everyone knows that...," my spider- sense starts tingling.

[36. Ultraviolet said the following at 2:03 PM on Nov 25:]

36

Am I the only one wondering how we know that these emails are real?

I don't understand why there is such resistance to man-made climate change. I mean, making small changes in one's lifestyle to better help the planet. Even if there is some giant conspiracy about scientists wanting to steal American tax dollars, it's not like our environmental practices in the West are *helping* the planet. Cut back on the things you can (you know, the ones that don't fund all these plotting scientists) like riding your bike more, not leaving your furnace on when you don't have to, etc. and then just withhold judgment until we get a little more information. This adamant resistance to the idea that we could be negatively harming the planet is baffling to me.

[37. Joel said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 25:]

37

@ 36 Regarding whether the E-mails are real, as I understand it the owners of the server where they were supposedly taken from have acknowledged that the server was hacked, and several scientists have acknowledged the content of the released e-mails that they authored.

Are you really puzzled by the resistance to man-made climate change but not by the historically unprecedented campaign that has emerged in SUPPORT of man-made climate change?

Kicker is that even if it WERE true, and the earth's temperature went up by 3 degrees or whatever the "experts" are threatening this week, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's been much warmer before, and it will likely be warmer again, and humanity tends to do better when it's warm than when it's cold. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/inbetweeners-enjoy-the-warmth-while-it-lasts/ What more could you ask for?

[38. BDB said the following at 3:08 PM on Nov 25:]

38

Samantha (#33) wrote:

>>I was only ten years old when all that Y2K nonsense was going on, but I remember thinking how funny it was that everyone was getting so worked up.<<

Yeah, I remember the moment I realized it wasn't true. In the presentation a guy at my church gave, I realized that it all hinged on one executive at a power company saying a plant shut down because of the integrated chips. And from that they extrapolated that EVERY power plant in the world would shut down.

My thought was, "I wonder if that was a marketing executive, not an engineer."

Because, of course any power-company engineer who hears that is immediately going to test the power plant they are responsible for and make sure that THEIRS is not going to shut off. And even if it did in a test, they're going to find a work-around long before it actually happens.

The rest of that hype was built around all the electricity shutting down.

While yes, some glaciers have been receding, they've been doing that since the last ice age, when most of North America was covered by ice. The planet obviously started warming from that ice age long before humans began burning fossil fuels. I'm quite confident that the non-human causes that began and ended previous ice ages are continuing without paying any heed to what humans are doing.

[39. BDB said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 25:]

39

Ultraviolet (#36) wrote:

>>Am I the only one wondering how we know that these emails are real?<<

Several things lend credence to their authenticity.

1) The people whose e-mails were publishd are in stunned silence, refusing to respond to press inquiries. If they were fake, they would have immediately pointed that out.

2) The scientists that were spoken of negatively in the e-mails immediately spoke up to the press, saying they suspected something was going on, and this helps them understand why they were running into resistance.

3) Failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests can be considered a crime in some jurisdictions. Refusal to provide requested documents is often a red flag for fraud. The fact that they were discussing how to engage in this type of fraud is itself cause for an audit. Remember, Arthur Anderson was given a corporate death sentence for shredding documents as obstruction of justice. If these guys really were destroying data to hide the truth, they're no better than the folks at Enron.

And to refute the charge that they were destroying data, all they have to do is publish the data and say, "We have nothing to hide - here it is."

Instead, they remain silent...probably on the advice of their lawyers.

[40. Al said the following at 3:18 PM on Nov 25:]

40

Matt, thanks for that post-- it was a fair and evenhanded analysis of why some may manipulate facts for their cause, and a good reminder that we are hardly immune from that tendency even as believers. We are often affected by the same sorts of biases and temptations that we observe those who disagree with us to suffer from. And thanks for the reminder that who God is and what He does is still more important than the tangental and debatable issues we are often tempted to latch onto Christianity as essentials, even as we should continue to investigate and debate with integrity.

[41. Michael Fumento said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 25:]

41

In response to Violet and comment 36, it's not an inherent opposition in everybody's case and certainly not in mine. And no, I have no industry ties and have never gotten a cent from any fossil fuel company.

I'm a science writer and researcher and I've found - as have many others - that the science at the very least isn't nearly as strong as global warming advocates say it is. For example, it's a fact that there's been no warming over the last decade even though during that same time period the amount of greenhouse gas emissions has increased by a fourth. Why not?

This doesn't disprove a connection between mankind's activities and warming, but at the very least it shows that the equation of "more gases = more warming" is a gross oversimplification. Add that we know there have been tremendous historical fluctulations in which man could not have played a role, such as the "Little Ice Age" and the medieval warming period.

Now the role of man in the warming that occurred up to about 10 years ago seems rather more tenuous, doesn't it?

It would seem that before we spend a fortune to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we should make a better effort to understand what role if any they truly play in warming.

[42. Jethro said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 25:]

42

Farmer Tom (#9),

Is that you Glen Beck?

[43. Jethro said the following at 3:35 PM on Nov 25:]

43

Ted,

You know it just occured to me that you have not seen fit to condemn the crime perpetrated by the computer hackers...

What should we take from that? Last I checked this would constitute a pretty serious crime all of its own...

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 4:46 PM on Nov 25:]

44

Jethro,

I've listened to Glen Beck for about 20 minutes one day while hauling hog manure.

I was not impressed.

If what I said in #9 sounds like Glen Beck, then he's obviously smarter than I thought. Maybe he's been reading my comments.

[45. BDB said the following at 6:21 PM on Nov 25:]

45

Personally, I think it's a mistake to assume these scientists are engaging in a fradulent cover-up to advance their own financial interests. While it is perfectly true that many frauds are designed for the financial benefit of the one committing fraud, it is hardly the only motivation out there.

Think about it - how many people are pro-Life because it makes them money? We know that organizations like Planned Parenthood and certain abortion doctors make a ton of money from the practice. And we can conjecture whether organized crime would like to have it back as a money-making scheme. But are pro-Lifers going to somehow make money if the country wakes up and stops killing its own children?

Similarly, from what I read from these e-mails, they seem to be driven by ideology rather than guaranteed financial gain. Yes, Al Gore seems to have made a lot of money - not the least the million-dollar Peace Prize. But most scientists don't have access to that kind of money.

One of my more liberal family members suggested that because I was not one of the global-warming deniers, I was in the camp who believed that there would be winners (Canada) and losers (Maldives). The fact that temperatures have not risen for the last 10 years, despite CO2 emissions increasing by 25%, tells me that human CO2 emissions must not be terribly relevant to the process. So, for goodness sake, don't destroy all the CO2-producing jobs for the sake of a scientific model that has been wrong for the last decade.

It's clear to me that the climate-change quantitative models are no better than the quantitative models used for the real-estate mortgage industry. The guys at Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Indymac, and Merrill Lynch are not all idiots. But clearly, their quantitative risk models were wrong. I'm not at all convinced that the climate change scientists are better and building quantitative models to predict the future.

[46. DJS said the following at 8:45 PM on Nov 25:]

46

Folks, many of you are missing the point and skipping steps in Ted's logic.

1. Certain scientists explored the theory of global warming and rightly or wrongly felt that manmade global warming was happening.

2. Liberal politicians in America ran with this research and did two things: one, poured more money to these scientists and others to continue to prove this theory. And two, used this idea that "man" is ruining the world to legislate extra laws and regulations and taxes to continue to turn America into a socialist nation.

3. Neither the scientists (finances and power)nor the politicians (political ideology) can now afford to have their almost "made up" theory disproved.

Recognize that governments and politicians are constantly trying to seize more power. Not just the government of America! This a trend that is historically born out. Look at any group in government and over a long period of time they will consistently look for ways to increase their power and influence over the population.

This is simply human nature played out in politics. That is why checks and balances, and the willingness to enforce those checks and balances is so crititical to the freedom of a population.

[47. farmer Tom said the following at 9:42 PM on Nov 25:]

47

For those of you who are skeptical of Ted's assertions that the goal of the AWG crowd is one world government. Here's something to put in your pipe and smoke.

Listen very closely at 1:30 into the clip of the new European Union President's acceptance speech on November 19th of 2009.

New EU President

Here is a print version of that part of the speech. I highlighted the most telling parts.

"We're living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence," he said in his maiden press conference. "Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Ted didn't dream this up. I saw it on Youtube. You may not like the facts, but they are telling you if you will listen. They want a one world government. Any questions?

[48. Samantha said the following at 2:18 AM on Nov 26:]

48

Jethro (#42)

So THAT'S what people do when they can't think of a good argument. I'll have to remember that one...

Why not try to defend your view instead of simply attacking others?

BTW, maybe Farmer Tom really wants to be Glenn Beck and you just made his day ;)

[49. BI said the following at 6:27 AM on Nov 26:]

49

Ted, why are you surprised that scientists who receive funding for research supporting Global Warming try to convince everyone that GW is real and dangerous? It is surely much easier to get funding if one is trying to save the planet from a great danger than for something much less significant in scope. The real question for me is which human activity has the most disastrous effect on the environment – is it really only the emission of CO2 gases in the atmosphere?

I think it is doubtless that in our industrial age we have some influence on the environment. In my opinion, the issue is much more complicated than whether there is global warming or not as BDB #13 has pointed out in his comment. Companies can easily go abroad and dump all their toxic waste in a poor country where they have bribed the local officials. Who is going to hold them accountable for this? Can toxic waste thrown in one part of the world not affect eventually the whole world? However, biologists and scientist keep on talking about CO2 emissions and Global Warming while ignoring issues of other kinds of industrial pollution such as toxic waste, non-point pollution, genetically modified foods (this is a little off topic, but I will elaborate later), over-production and over-consumption leading to too much waste in advanced economies, and others. Not to mention of course poor sanitation and poor living conditions for the poor which can also lead to a different kind of pollution – AIDS, HIV, malaria, etc.

Everyone who has studied econometrics which is used in all fields of science knows that a scientist can only prove a relationship (albeit an indirect one) but not a direct causality between any two events. So, Ted, you ask why scientists want to manipulate data so they can prove Global Warming. If scientists truly want to find the truth (because let’s say they consider God’s authority), then they will not focus only on one issue but they will try to see the big picture. However, if their ultimate authority comes from the source of their funding, well, that’s where one is going to find their truth also, even at the cost of manipulating data. I am an economist and I’ll ask you a question: do you think that all the economic data that you get from the government is accurate and trustworthy? If the government is trying to prove that its policies are working, do you think that its researchers are going to ride against the tide and prove something different? For instance, have you ever thought how can a country grow and prosper for so many years mainly by printing paper? What does your country produce besides “services’ which are included in the GDP and what kind of material goods does your country consume? Where do these material goods come from? Has anyone asked themselves at what cost are all these material goods produced which Americans are so freely consuming? For instance, the goods that come from China, do you have any idea how many people suffered to produce them and were exploited so that Americans can buy them cheap? No one really thinks about this – where this particular product does come from and what kind of labor, slave or oppressive or exploitative, was used to produce it. However, China is a good friend of America as long as it provides cheap products and it is not our problem about the civil rights abuses and the exploitation of labor that take place there, right? Most economists will object to me and say that the Chinese laborers chose to work for the ridiculously low salary that companies offered to them. But, what kind of a choice is that: to toil under a repressive regime where no one may reward you or to toil for a low salary in competition with billions of other Chinese in order to feed one’s family! It’s like a single mother in Africa which has to choose between watching her child starve to death or accept to lie with an HIV positive male who can provide for her child’s future. What kind of a choice is that? Sometimes the poor do not have a choice.

Ted, have you watched the movie King Corn or Supersize Me? Do you know the damage that non nutritious food can cause in the long run? Nevertheless, even great evangelicals invest in such companies, as these companies return great profits with their cheap tasty and addictive but unhealthy food.

Even in church people sometimes like to substitute the truth for something else. How did some people come with the idea that gay marriage is something natural? Did they see this as natural in nature or did they read it in the Bible? Or maybe they saw it deep in someone’s check book, or someone in high position of power developed some kind of special liking for the same sex or maybe both? (sorry for being cynical!) Sometimes people turn their own self-interest into their truth. That’s part of human nature and sin in general.

I can tell you that even now many people in the church think that I am not a Christian because when I speak the truth, they do not like it or accept it. Hence, they push me away, look down on me and treat me as a non-believer. They prefer to think and claim (usually behind my back) that I am not a Christian because I have not repented for speaking what they did not want to hear regardless of whether it is true or not true. Nobody wants to know the truth; everyone wants to hear only what it pleases their own self-interest. But, what is hidden one day will be revealed, and all these people will be utterly ashamed for what they thought, said and done behind my back. Does what they think matter about my Christian faith? No, it does not, because I know to whom I belong and in whom I have placed all my trust, that’s Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. But for the time being, I can only offer this quote from the Bible: Luke 18: 9-14.

[50. twilley said the following at 10:30 AM on Nov 26:]

50

BI, #49:

I'm not sure how gay marriage fits into your greater argument, but it might be better left out. Those of us who are gay and who want to get married aren't looking for checkbooks or power, we're looking to live our lives without discrimination and oppression.

[51. BDB said the following at 12:50 PM on Nov 26:]

51

Bl (#49) - One thing I'd quibble with you on is genetically modified food. As long as we've had agriculture, plans have been bred to make them stronger and more productive. The GMO crops that are derided in Europe are developed more precisely than "organic" cross-breeding. But they're still plants. And - what appeals to me the most - they are developed to be pest and disease resistant. This allows them to be cultivated successfully without pesticides. Pesticides which the poor can't afford anyway.

Having been in countries where people are working those low-wage manufacturing jobs; to people in those countries, they are often a HUGE improvement to, say, growing rice and raising chickens to survive.

There are a variety of components to manufacturing. (No pun intended.) Just because a factory in China can BUILD something, doesn't mean they can ENGINEER it.

If the U.S. really wanted to build U.S. manufacturing capacity, they should let EVERY science and engineering graduate of a U.S. college get a green card. That way they can live in the U.S. and create jobs here. As it is, they develop their skills then go back to their home country and create jobs here.

[52. grace said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 26:]

52

Carbon credits anyone?

[53. Bob said the following at 4:36 PM on Nov 26:]

53

All "climate change" is a product of nature not man. Much of "climate change" can be attributed to the sun's solar flare and sun spot activity. People whine about it getting warmer but the Earth used to be warmer than it is now. During Roman times, grapes were grown in England but it is too cold for that now. And people whine about glaciers melting but many of these glaciers did not even show up until the onset of the Dark Ages and several other mini-ice ages that humanity has experienced during the last 2,00 years. All of these climate changes were the result of solar activity or volcanic activity, not people. So go blame mother nature for climate change not me.

Even if global warming was really going on (which in fact the earth is cooling) all of the things government have promised to do about it would not do a thing at all to stop it, only to amass an enormous amount of power and money for themselves at our expense.

[54. Chris said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 26:]

54

farmer Tom writes (#47):

Here is a print version of that part of the speech. I highlighted the most telling parts.

"We're living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence," he said in his maiden press conference. "Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Ted didn't dream this up. I saw it on Youtube. You may not like the facts, but they are telling you if you will listen. They want a one world government. Any questions?

I interpreted the statement as governments working together in concert, much as they tried to do with the G20 and global efforts to deal with the financial crisis.

But, I guess if you're looking for evidence for a one world government, black UN helicopters, and even a world leader who's going to put the mark of the beast on us all, you'll find whatever evidence you want to find.

You are severely misguided. Go back and highlight "joint effort". Now tell me that means a one world government.

[55. Ted Slater said the following at 10:50 PM on Nov 26:]

55

Yes, this seems to be a worldwide conspiracy to take money and power from us commoners.

Check out this breaking news, just out of New Zealand:

"The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre."

Senator Inhofe has, like many, made the connection between this fraudulent data and increased government control and higher taxes:

"The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated."

Again, this is relevant because we, as Christians, are to be wise stewards of truth and creation. Relationships are important, and so is truth and creation. That's why this topic is good for us to discuss here on Boundless. It's also good for us to discuss here on Boundless because young adults have the most to lose if these government programs are enacted.

[56. Ted Slater said the following at 11:04 PM on Nov 26:]

56

Chris (#54) -- please tell me how you interpret the following sentence:

"The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Sounds like the EU President is talking about, um, "global management of our planet." The meaning is plain, isn't it? International leaders want global control, and are pushing a "global crisis" to gain that control. How else can you interpret what the EU President is saying?

[57. JVR from Denver said the following at 11:39 PM on Nov 26:]

57

Ted,

I can answer that. He's talking about us, people, on a global level MANAGING OUR PLANET. How we can work together on it, and try and get everyone involved.

He's NOT talking about that individual conference taking on some kind of EVIL SUPERVILLAIN status, twisting their mustaches and sending us all to internment camps if we don't kiss Al Gore's ring.

I'm not sure if you'll allow this comment to be posted or not, but you're just sounding crazier by the minute.

[58. twilley said the following at 2:03 AM on Nov 27:]

58

Ted, #56:

I just don't think it's as sinister as all that. I mean, elected politicians get replaced on a regular basis. Obama knows he will be out of office in 3-7 years, Angela Merkel knows she only has a few years left...

According to Wikipedia, the EU Presidency rotates every six months.

These people aren't planning long-term dominance like dictators.

But IF this is a global problem, and a real problem, then it HAS to be managed globally. Otherwise, what will we have? Rich countries doing things which are convenient for them, and which dump waste and poverty on less wealthy nations. I mean, even if you don't find the evidence for climate change compelling...

The problem of global pollution and environmental preservation must also be managed globally.

How else will we get wealthy nations to check their reckless and wasteful lifestyles, while giving poorer ones the ability to install clean technology? We are beginning on an uneven playing field, and if we all want to work together to clean up our oceans and rivers, which we all share, we must do it internationally... even globally.

[59. BI said the following at 6:45 AM on Nov 27:]

59

BDB, # 51

Let me first express my appreciation for your comments. I have no idea how one can make so many comments as you make on Boundless while putting substance into them when this is not even your primary job.

About genetically modified food – have you ever watched King Corn? Please, watch it and let’s discuss it then. Just as a side note before you watch the movie, GMO can be developed in such a way so as to even grow when you apply the appropriate pesticides. The great advantage of GMO is yield and profit, and certainly not the fact that they can be cultivated without pesticides. Usually the poor produce the most organic food, because they do not apply any fertilizers or pesticides to their crops, as they do not have the money for this. Hence, they produce a smaller yield and a smaller profit unlike the GMO crops.

>There are a variety of components to manufacturing. (No pun intended.) Just because a factory in China can BUILD something, doesn't mean they can ENGINEER it.<

This slogan does no longer hold. Why do you think the Chinese allowed American companies into their country to exploit their abundant supply of cheap labor? So that the government can get US dollars and attain American know-how. The Chinese government collects US dollars by levying all kinds of duties and charges on American companies located in China which export their produce to the US. One of the conditions for an American company to locate itself in China is to hire and train native Chinese, usually submissive to the government, in key managerial positions in the company. As time goes on, the Chinese hope to attain enough know-how so that they can become both the Engineers and the Builders, and thus move ahead of the US and eventually be entirely self-reliant. After all, no one wants to be only a source of cheap labor or a producer of raw materials at a low price in highly competitive markets.

BTW, if you ever go to China, you may be able to notice the incredible advances in technology and robotics that companies employ there. It is amazing to see how far they have progressed.

However, meanwhile the Chinese government wants to encourage more companies to locate in China. Hence, the Chinese attempt to provide very favorable business conditions. And one of these conditions is a stable exchange rate of its currency in relation to US dollars. Here is where it gets tricky. In order to do this, the Chinese government (similar to the Japanese government) has to intervene on open markets and buy American dollars in order to prop up the depreciating American currency in relation to the Chinese one (renminbi). Hence, then they use most of their US dollars to buy US Treasuries from the US government as US Treasuries return an interest. In the end, the Chinese government turns out to be the world’s largest international holder of US treasuries (around $800 billion). These interventions create great imbalances on the exchange rate market and on the market for Treasuries. In addition, think about just how interrelated and interdependent the two countries are – what will happen if the Chinese decide suddenly to get rid of all their US dollars and Treasuries? In conclusion, all of this could not have been possible if China did not have a centrally-planned communist regime willing to engage with the US companies and government in some kind of a mutually beneficial economic symbiosis. So, it can really go deep from here as you can see. However, I will stop here for now.

[60. BI said the following at 6:48 AM on Nov 27:]

60

twilley, #50:

No one is discriminating and oppressing you – no one has ever taken your human rights away and no one considers you less of a human being because you have chosen to live your life a certain way. However, the Bible argues that your choice is not really the best one for you, and actually can be quite harmful for your own self. Consider with me for a while – human relationships are usually complicated as they involve a lot of feelings and emotions, misunderstandings, conflicts and all kinds of other stuff. However, people are not only physical beings. There are also spiritual ones. In other words, what the physical traits show us and point us to is usually a much deeper and tense spiritual reality. For instance, as men and women are created to physically complement each other so they are created to complement each other spiritually. While many people focus only on the superficial issues, especially sex and good looks, there is a much deeper and greater spiritual reality consisting of person’s emotions, dreams, desires, and character as a whole. Unfortunately, many people focus only on the physical attraction between two individual while ignoring this other much richer and greater spiritual reality. That’s why you can see why it is wise for Christians not to engage in sexual activity before marriage as they seek to form first this kind of a spiritual bond that will last a lifetime.

I know it’s sometimes a lot easier to relate emotionally and psychologically with members of the same sex than with members of the opposite whom one does not understand at all. I don’t know about physically and physical pleasure, but spiritually one can never find the completeness in a same-sex union as one has not been created this way. You can see for yourself this need of a male and female union and completeness in many same-sex couples when one member is the dominant and more masculine one and the other one the weaker and the more female one. They are simply trying to compensate for the spiritual lack. Nevertheless, this is your life and you choose how to live it best for yourself. BTW, Boundless has many articles on the topic – if you’re interested, please ask the edits to point you there. It is a shame that you are a Christian and not have a proper understanding of what is best for you. Not everything that feels good for your body is beneficial for your soul. Take certain drugs for instance that can provide great pleasure, but ultimately they will take something else away from you. However, whatever you do to your soul, this should not make one think of you as less than a person.

[61. Ted Slater said the following at 9:02 AM on Nov 27:]

61

twilley (#58) -- you wrote:

"The problem of global pollution and environmental preservation must also be managed globally."

No, I will not let you get away with introducing "pollution" into a conversation about climate change. This global warming fraud is in NO WAY similar to the justifiable concern about pollution and environmental preservation.

Pollution is bad for the environment; the environment THRIVES on CO2 and water vapor (the top 2 "greenhouse gases").

If there's going to be global management of "pollution," then I can think of some countries in Asia that should receive a lot more attention than the States. Of course, that's not going to happen because it's NOT about the environment, it's about money and control.

Here's a question: If I don't submit to this "global management," will I be punished? And who will punish me? Americans, or some "global management" body? Who has the power of enforcement in this "global management"?

These rhetorical questions point to our sacrificing our sovereignty -- our freedom and our wealth -- for the sake of some manufactured global "crisis." Follow the money ...

[62. Ted Slater said the following at 9:28 AM on Nov 27:]

62

For discussion, I introduce to you a graph of the global sea ice area from 1979 to present. This includes ice from both the north pole and the south pole. Click the image to see it larger:

As you can see, while ice melts in the summer and re-freezes in the winter, overall the trend is flat. In other words, we are not experiencing a crisis, folks.

[63. Chris said the following at 10:44 AM on Nov 27:]

63

Ted writes (#56):

Chris (#54) -- please tell me how you interpret the following sentence:

"The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."

Sounds like the EU President is talking about, um, "global management of our planet." The meaning is plain, isn't it? International leaders want global control, and are pushing a "global crisis" to gain that control. How else can you interpret what the EU President is saying?

I suppose if you want to interpret "global management" as "global control", you can. I view it as countries coordinating efforts (via individual actions, treaties, combined efforts) to address a problem.

If the subject was instead "global management" of, oh, say, a response to terrorism or poverty or free trade or the human traffic/sex trade, would you view that a ruse for global control?

[64. twilley said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 27:]

64

Ted, #61:

By giving the example of pollution, I wasn't trying to provoke argument--I just realize that you don't agree with the science which shows global warming, and I wanted to give an example you could relate to, to give you another way of understanding the idea of "global management."

So all I wanted to do was to try and give us another way to look at the question of "global management." I mean, I think we could say that the problem of, say, water source pollution needs to be managed globally, since the bodies we get our water from don't respect national boundaries.

I mean, personally I don't have any problem with some repercussions for people who don't respect the environment. In Germany, for instance, recycling is sort of mandatory. If the trash guys see you are always dumping tons of bottles in the garbage which could be recycled, they can report you (although they rarely do) and you can be fined (although this rarely happens).

Personally, I think fighting to preserve our environment is best done on a local level, but with an eye towards international cooperation if that makes sense. I don't know if instituting the trash tax in the US would really work because of cultural differences, but certainly we can find some way to deal with polluters that would work for us. Even if you don't think we should try to reduce carbon emissions, I think we might agree that some kind of punitive measures are effective in reducing environmental pollution more generally.

[65. twilley said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 27:]

65

BI, #60:

I find your comment off-topic. My post meant to point out to you that you were, I thought, getting off topic by bringing in gay rights. I would like to reply to what you say, but don't want to break the comment policy. I hope the editors do not mind posting my response.

"No one is discriminating and oppressing you"

This is not the truth. I am currently being discriminated against by my employer financially. At my last job, I experienced intimidation by my supervisors because of my sexual orientation.

"no one considers you less of a human being because you have chosen to live your life a certain way."

This isn't true either; I have had my humanity disrespected many times because of my sexuality.

"However, the Bible argues that your choice is not really the best one for you, and actually can be quite harmful for your own self."

I accept that you interpret the Bible to say this, and would like to say that I have a differing interpretation of the text, and do not find homosexuality itself harmful.

"Unfortunately, many people focus only on the physical attraction between two individual while ignoring this other much richer and greater spiritual reality"

I agree that this is unfortunate, and I also agree that godly relationships must be at the same time physical and spiritual.

"I know it’s sometimes a lot easier to relate emotionally and psychologically with members of the same sex than with members of the opposite whom one does not understand at all."

This is not my experience--I find that I relate equally well to both men and women. My best friends have always been a mix of male and female.

"spiritually one can never find the completeness in a same-sex union."

I disagree, and would like to let you know that my spiritual relationship with my partner is as complete as that in a comparable heterosexual relationship.

"Boundless has many articles on the topic"

I am aware of this, and I have read extensively throughout the FotF websites to understand the organization's thinking on homosexuality.

"It is a shame that you are a Christian and not have a proper understanding of what is best for you."

I disagree, and feel that I do have a proper understanding of what is best for me, as well as what direction God is giving me in my life.

"Not everything that feels good for your body is beneficial for your soul. Take certain drugs for instance that can provide great pleasure, but ultimately they will take something else away from you."

This is most certainly true. Plenty of things which feel good are horrible for you physically and spiritually. I do not agree that being gay falls into this category.

"However, whatever you do to your soul, this should not make one think of you as less than a person."

I am glad you feel this way. I do not agree that I am doing anything to harm my soul by being a gay person, or by being in a long-term committed partnership. On the contrary, I believe God has given me my sexuality and my relationship to bring my soul closer to Him.

[66. Chris said the following at 11:55 AM on Nov 27:]

66

Ted writes (#61):

Pollution is bad for the environment; the environment THRIVES on CO2 and water vapor (the top 2 "greenhouse gases").

As I've pointed out here before, the mere fact that something is useful/beneficial to the environment or is part of the environment does not automatically exempt it from pollution concerns. Likewise, something being potentially dangerous does not make it an automatic threat. (Examples I've used before: Chrome, as a trace element, is important to the human diet. Chrome can also cause cancer. Water is critical to life. You can die from water intoxication.)

While we can argue whether or not CO2 and other gases at elevated levels pose a danger, please do not argue your point with very bad claims such as the one above.

[67. BDB said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 27:]

67

Bl (#59) wrote:

>>About genetically modified food – have you ever watched King Corn? Please, watch it and let’s discuss it then.<<

No, and I don't think I will. I looked up their web site and it is clearly written from a certain point of view which I'm already familiar with. Many of these issues, including corn subsidies, have been around for a long time. It was actually the debate topic when I was in high school, so I've spent way too much time studying agricultural policy.

I think they are missing the biggest policy problem: property taxes destroyed the family farm. Poor farmers - like my family in previous generations - could live off the land even in bad years. Until such time as their land was taxed for cash. With property taxes, farmers have to pay cash every year - even in a year when their crops fail. This forced many farmers to sell their farms to pay the taxes and take jobs in the city. Result: corporate farming.

It is actually relevant to this climate change debate because the pending legislation is designed to impose all sorts of new taxes. This will create huge compliance costs that the little guys can't bear. Regulation and taxation will probably force them out of business or force them to sell out to large corporations who CAN afford a compliance staff.

Taxes are behind the rise of Wal-Mart, too. Specifically, inheritance taxes. When a family builds a large business, the founders and the generation who built the company eventually get old and retire or die. Because of the estate tax laws, they cannot pass on their business whole. Some companies, like Wal-Mart, get around this problem by going public. Then the family can sell shares of stock to pay the estate taxes. But many mid-sized companies are too small to be public companies, even if they are big enough to be strong regional companies. So when their owner dies, they often are forced to sell the company to a larger company. They then get stock in the larger company, which they can sell to pay the taxes. But it wipes out a competitor to the large company.

I remember when the Muppets were sold to Disney. At first, I was disappointed that they lost their independence. About a year later, Jim Henson died of cancer. There really wasn't a choice; there was no way the company could stay intact after his death because of the death tax.

[68. twilley said the following at 4:41 PM on Nov 27:]

68

Ted, #62:

When I read around on the parent site for that image, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/, I found only scientists agreeing that climate change was happening and was problematic, so it seems that the people who posted the image have a different interpretation of it than you.

I am also not sure how this image supports your case--if you look at the lower part of the graph which represents net change in the sea ice area over time, you see that in more recent years the changes become much more drastic than previously, with the overall sea ice experiencing the most erratic changes in the last couple of years since the graph begins to track it in 1979. Looks like 2009 was the greatest net change yet, actually.

[69. Befuddled said the following at 7:02 PM on Nov 27:]

69

Nice chart, but without a source, it's meaningless.

[70. Philip said the following at 7:06 PM on Nov 27:]

70

Since global warming is predicted to decrease Arctic ice and increase or keep constant Antarctic ice, it makes more sense to look at them individually. Even if Ted were right about no overall trend in the combined data, it would be perfectly consistent with global warming. This site has a good graph, about 3/4 the way down, showing the monthly anomaly (i.e. seasonal trend removed) and trend lines for both. There is a clear decreasing trend for the Arctic and a lesser increase for the Antarctic.

[71. John said the following at 6:34 PM on Nov 28:]

71

To all those who say something like "well global warming has to exist because all these scientists say it does" should think about the field of science (in reality, science fiction in this case) evolution. Just b/c a bunch of people with "credentials" say something does not mean there is automatically any truth to it.

p.s.- if people were to do more digging they would find that there are many more scientists who denounce global warming as a fraud: for just two quick examples: Japan's Society of Energy and Resouces (JSER) and even the founder of the Weather Channel have denounced man made global warming.

Both evolution and global warming "research" is politically driven and masquerades as science; when in fact real science contradicts every thing these "researchers" and "scientists" say!

[72. Ted Slater said the following at 8:32 PM on Nov 28:]

72

In other news:

----------------------

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped....

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures....

Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change....

----------------------

Essentially, the people who are convincing the UN's IPCC that "global warming" is a crisis ... are saying that the dog ate their homework. Weak.

Is it really not clear that this is a huge fraud? Seriously, I do not understand why anyone would still be defending these people.

Yes, care for the environment. But let's practice good stewardship of our faculties and resources, and not fall for this thing, yeah? If there's a "crisis," it's sin and deception, not "anthropogenic global warming."

[73. BI said the following at 10:12 PM on Nov 28:]

73

BDB, 67:
I do not support “their point of view” and I am not against corporate farming in general (as far as I know no one is against corporate farming but against the abuses done by companies and politicians). The issue here is not subsidies and not about taxes – these might be part only of the bigger picture. Please watch the movie, do your research, do the hard work, and then let’s discuss. Why should you dismiss something of value just because of a prejudice? I have been at an environmentalist conference where all kinds of people – Christians and non-Christians – were invited and everyone had to share their viewpoint about Global Warming, pollution, and social rights. When one is diligently looking for the truth, one can find it at all kinds of places. Of course, one always has to test what one believes to be true. At the very least you can learn what the other point of view really is without dismissing it prejudicially.

[74. BI said the following at 10:27 PM on Nov 28:]

74

twilley, 65
>I disagree, and would like to let you know that my spiritual relationship with my partner is as complete as that in a comparable heterosexual relationship.<
I really do not believe you. A proper relationship is done under the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God does not dwell in such places. You may have an attraction to your own sex but God is not there.
> I disagree, and feel that I do have a proper understanding of what is best for me, as well as what direction God is giving me in my life.<
The salvation of your soul is more important than your life and pleasure. Would you be willing to give up everything and follow God?
> I do not agree that I am doing anything to harm my soul by being a gay person, or by being in a long-term committed partnership. On the contrary, I believe God has given me my sexuality and my relationship to bring my soul closer to Him.<
You may believe many things, but what matters in the end is what is really true. And on the issue of the soul – you’d better know what you are talking about. You may believe you are doing nothing wrong to your soul when you steal or harm someone, but is your belief really true?

[75. BDB said the following at 12:08 AM on Nov 29:]

75

Bl (#73) wrote:

>>Why should you dismiss something of value just because of a prejudice?<<

Hmmm...oh, because based on their web site, it's encouraging people to engage in politics from a certain point of view. But their web site has zero data or references showing what their conclusions, if any, are based on. That tells me they aren't really researchers. They just made a propaganda film. Real policy researchers have lots and lots of footnotes and extensively cite both laws and published literature. Their cite...says contact your congressman. Huh? Nothing there to look at. Which tells me there's no real way to investigate their research.

I mean, if I wanted to get involved in a policy debate on how losing topsoil created the need for GMO crops, I could head down to the office of the Soil Conservaton Service. Then I can go look for counter-examples, whether in published journals or other sources.

Now, granted, sometimes these amateur documentaries do affect policy decisions. The guy who did SuperSize Me gained a bunch of weight. And his film convinced McDonald's to get rid of super-sizing. But it was hardly scientific research. It was investigative journalism.

[76. BI said the following at 12:53 AM on Nov 29:]

76

twilley,65

One more thing,
when you engage in homosexual activities, you are not only harming yourself but also the other person. Hence, I cannot condone such behavior as I cannot condone theft so thiefs may like me nor condone murder so murderers may like me. However, the best I can do to oppose your choice of lifestyle is try to disuade you from such behavior as much lovingly as possible. And all Christians should do similarly without trying to harm you or do anything evil to you as Christians are called to treat others with love and respect, even their enemies,. However, I cannot guarantee about non-Christians and how they are going to treat you because of your sexual oirentation.

[77. BI said the following at 2:47 AM on Nov 29:]

77

BDB,

I agree with you on SuperSize me although I have not watched the movie, but I know the journalist's style. However, there is some truth to his movie as well - fatty and grease food full only with sugar nad carbohydrates can be very delicious but actually starves your whole organism because it lacks vitamins and essential nutrients.

About their website - well, this is another conversation and discussion. Please watch the movie and let's discuss its data and facts. I think the movie is nothing like Michael Moore's style and can be very educating. Of course, when you have watched the movie, you can check the facts for yourself and then discuss it.

[78. BI said the following at 5:02 AM on Nov 29:]

78

BDB,

In general all documentary movies are more or less influenced by their authors’ bias and personal worldview. However, even non-Christians might be honestly looking for the truth amidst the lies that we are living in our world, and they may also produce quality works with truth and educational value found in them. Hence, it is good for Christians to get knowledge and truth from other places as well. Of course, we should always be careful and test everything and check the data and facts for ourselves.

Moreover, this may turn out to be a good meeting place with many non-Christians, especially younger people, who may also sincerely search for truth amidst the lies of this world. Hence, one can be a great witness to the truth of the gospel before people who earnestly search for truth in other areas of life.

[79. Chris said the following at 10:12 AM on Nov 29:]

79

Ted quotes from a link (#72):

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped....

Ted, why don't you finish that paragraph from the article (emphasis mine):

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

I do not post this to say that it disproves your fraud claims. Rather, I'd thought you'd want to use to it to further claim a "coverup". After all, data dumped in the 1980s during a move, before the "crisis", is an obvious ruse that was employed 20 years ago as part of a multi-decade plot.

[80. twilley said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 29:]

80

BI, #74:

"I really do not believe you. A proper relationship is done under the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God does not dwell in such places. You may have an attraction to your own sex but God is not there."

That's fine. If you don't believe that my experience of God working in my life is valid, then I accept that. I can tell what God has done for me, but people don't always listen to or believe testimony.

"The salvation of your soul is more important than your life and pleasure. Would you be willing to give up everything and follow God?"

Indeed, my soul's life is much more important than my pleasure. I would hope I could be ready to give up anything God asked me to.

"You may believe many things, but what matters in the end is what is really true. And on the issue of the soul – you’d better know what you are talking about. You may believe you are doing nothing wrong to your soul when you steal or harm someone, but is your belief really true?"

All I can do is look where God leads me, do the work God gives my hands to do, and try to follow. Then get up the next day and do it all over again. I hope I would never think something so foolish as to believe that hurting another person was good for my soul.

[81. Lauren said the following at 2:21 PM on Nov 29:]

81

Matt Kauffman #35: I applaud you.

[82. Ted Slater said the following at 5:52 PM on Nov 29:]

82

Money, money, money -- that's what this is all about. In an article published today in The Guardian titled "Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade," we read:

______________

The carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme.

The ETS market may see $3tn (£1.8tn) worth of transactions a year in the next decade or two, according to Andrew Ager, head of emissions trading at Bache Commodities in London, with it even being used as a hedge against falling equities or rising inflation. "It is still a relatively new industry with annual trades of around €300bn every year. But this could grow to around $3tn compared to the $1.5tn market there is for oil," says Ager, who used to be a foreign currencies trader.

The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe....

The criticisms of environmentalists such as James Lovelock and Friends of the Earth (FoE) are far more fundamental. The basic charge is that the market has put millions of pounds into the pockets of some without making any real impact on carbon emissions.

______________

Got that last part? It's all about making money off of "carbon credits," but after all is said and done there's no meaningful impact on carbon emissions. As if "carbon emissions" even does anything beyond giving plants something to breathe.

Again, I have to reinforce that I'm all in favor of protecting the environment from real pollution. But the stuff we breathe out and that plants breathe in is not "pollution" like factory sludge and car exhaust.

[83. twilley said the following at 2:47 AM on Nov 30:]

83

BI, #76:

"when you engage in homosexual activities, you are not only harming yourself but also the other person. Hence, I cannot condone such behavior as I cannot condone theft so thiefs may like me nor condone murder so murderers may like me."

That's fine. You are free to believe that I am harmful if you wish. Gay people have a hard time understanding when we are compared to murderers, thieves, pedophiles, and all the other awful things we are compared to, because we do not see that we are harming others. When someone murders, there's a bloody body on the ground. When two gay people are in love, there's just... two happy gay people :o) My partner doesn't really agree that she is being harmed by being in a loving and life-affirming relationship with me, either :o)

"However, the best I can do to oppose your choice of lifestyle"

I prefer the term "life" to the term "lifestyle." This is my life.

"is try to disuade you from such behavior as much lovingly as possible. And all Christians should do similarly without trying to harm you or do anything evil to you as Christians are called to treat others with love and respect, even their enemies,."

Go for it. Please feel free to dissuade to your heart's content. I appreciate that you believe in treating your enemies with love and respect; I believe the same.

"However, I cannot guarantee about non-Christians and how they are going to treat you because of your sexual oirentation."

This sounds ominous. In my experience, however, there is very little, if any difference between the treatment LGBTQI people receive from Christians and non-Christians who are also anti-gay.

[84. BI said the following at 11:16 AM on Nov 30:]

84

twilley, 83:

Ok, I’ll try one last time to dissuade both of you from being “two happy gay people.”

I might feel happy if I engage in a sexual conduct before marriage and I might feel perfectly happy to commit adultery when I get married without any trace of remorse or guilt in my soul. Also, the partner that I engage with might also feel very happy with me. However, sin is sin and my momentary feelings of happiness do not justify and condone my sin. I am responsible for my actions and for all the emotional and spiritual damage they will bring to others, and the others’ willful cooperation in sin does not excuse me. If your own criterion is happiness before God, then, you’re not serving the God that I know from the Bible. My criterion is love, but love that does not make us necessarily happy but love that makes us holy and moves us closer to God. Actually, sometimes one needs much Love from Above in order to put to death the desires of the flesh that can send one into hell for eternity.

In my opinion, God has clearly revealed in nature and in His written word, the Bible, that man and female are to become one, only. Hence, you may have an attraction for the same sex and you can enjoy their company and friendship, and even have a great spiritual connection with someone, but for your own sake and their sake you are not allowed to have any physical touch. That’s why previously I wrote so much on denying physical pleasure for the sake of the salvation of your soul. Plus, what kind of example are you showing to other believers – that sinning is okay?

However, I know you may object to me and state what a great person you are and how many nice things you do. However, no one is justified before God for the good things they have done in their life, because there is no one who is without sin and no one can reach God’s standard of holiness on their own. The only thing that one can do is fall on the knees and pray and ask God for mercy and forgiveness, admitting one’s own lack of worth and one’s sinfulness. As a Christian, one comes to God with a repentant heart to plead with God for forgiveness and ask God to give her strength to turn away from sin. However, one cannot repent of something if they believe they are not sinning and actually saying that they know better for themselves what is sin and what not. This is actually the great human dilemma. We can rebel against God and claim that we do not need forgiveness and repentance for our sins and/or tell God that we know better than Him what sin is and what is not because we want to be happy. Or, we may ask God for mercy and forgiveness and ask Him to help us turn away from sin knowing that we are weak and this may make us feel quite unhappy. The latter is not only belief in God, but also trust in God that His ways and understanding are better than ours even if this may cost us some temporary pain or discomfort. Of course, you can always have your choice. I realize sometimes it’s almost impossible to change, almost like the good religious but very rich people and Pharisees who did not want to give up what they had and follow Jesus so they may be born from the Spirit of God.

[85. twilley said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 30:]

85

BI, #84:

"sin is sin and my momentary feelings of happiness do not justify and condone my sin. I am responsible for my actions and for all the emotional and spiritual damage they will bring to others, and the others’ willful cooperation in sin does not excuse me."

I most assuredly agree with you that momentary happiness does not justify sin. I disagree with you in that I do not think God holds committed love between two gay people to be a sin.

"If your own criterion is happiness before God, then, you’re not serving the God that I know from the Bible."

This is not my criterion. Choosing my own personal happiness over God's will would be cowardly and wrong. I do not feel it is productive to tell other people what they do and do not think about God.

"My criterion is love, but love that does not make us necessarily happy but love that makes us holy and moves us closer to God."

This is where I think have not understood my experience. My relationship with my partner, and my acceptance and understanding of my own sexuality, has brought me closer to God than anything else in my life ever has. I'm not disagreeing with you--we should all strive as Christians to become holy, to become closer to God. What I am witnessing to you is that it is through my acceptance of and joy in my sexuality that God teaches me holiness. Accept this testimony of God's power if you will, reject it if you will.

"In my opinion, God has clearly revealed in nature and in His written word, the Bible, that man and female are to become one, only."

That's fine. I disagree, and I accept the fact that we disagree on our interpretations of scripture and nature.

"However, I know you may object to me and state what a great person you are and how many nice things you do. However, no one is justified before God for the good things they have done in their life, because there is no one who is without sin and no one can reach God’s standard of holiness on their own."

I would not object on these grounds--a Christian would be a fool to think that just being a good person is what brings you to God. No human can ever be truly good. Again, it might be best to ask me my opinions on holiness instead of telling me what you think they are.

"We can rebel against God and claim that we do not need forgiveness and repentance for our sins and/or tell God that we know better than Him what sin is and what is not because we want to be happy."

You seem to think that I am setting up my own will or my personal happiness above God's will. This is untrue. God's guidance in my life has led me to accept my sexuality and to live in a relationship with my partner that draws us both closer to God. I am not interested in something as trivial as being happy; I'm interested in finding joy. If God showed me that my love was sinful, that it drew me away from Him, then I would follow his will. He shows me the opposite every single day.

"I realize sometimes it’s almost impossible to change, almost like the good religious but very rich people and Pharisees who did not want to give up what they had and follow Jesus so they may be born from the Spirit of God."

God has not given me any evidence that it is God's will for me to change. God's working in my life has led me to accept my sexuality as a thing that brings me closer to Him.

I can testify all I want of how God works in my life, but no one has to believe me. I am glad, though, for this unexpected opportunity to tell what God has done for me. Maybe someone will read it and gain something from it.

Since I have come out, I cannot TELL you the number of people I have talked to about my faith. I cannot explain to you the number of gay friends I have who are happy to hear about God, and in whose lives God has used me in completely cool ways, usually in spite of my own bumbling. Far more and far more honestly than I ever talked to about God while I was in the closet. Me and my partner? We pray together now on a regular basis. Just today God answered some huge prayers of ours... and puts people in our way all the time to give us just what we need to grow. I have no other explanation for the things that are happening to us right now, every day, than that God has brought us to this exact spot on the earth at this exact time, and he's doing some things that he wants to get done with us. I'm not saying that we follow perfectly, but just that at this point, it's pretty clear where God's leading.

[86. kevin said the following at 9:38 PM on Nov 30:]

86

Thanks, Ted, I don't believe in global warming anymore.

[87. BI said the following at 11:13 PM on Nov 30:]

87

twilley, 85:

I honestly do not know what kind of God you are talking about when you say you believe in God. That's certainly not the God of the Bible who says that a marital union can be only between a man and a woman. If you want to justify yourself in the public eye, as you like Christians, that's fine, but God condemns what you do as sin. The fact that Jesus talks only about such kind of marital union but does not say anything about same-sex unions, does not condone same-sex unions, but just the opposite, as Jesus also believes in the Old Testament. If you want to know what the Bible says, get knowledge, as this issue is not a matter of interpretation - there is no ground for it anywhere in the Bible. Certain kind of love is meant only for a marital union between a male and female so they can produce an offspring and be spiritually united and complete. I had another experience with prejudiced women - they thought all men are sexually driven beasts full of lust who they can easily manipulate and if this did not work out they concluded that these men were either gay or did not love them enough (it's obvious what kind of love they wanted).

You still have not answered my last paragraph from the previous post. Do you know the people in the OT had all kinds of idols which they worshipped by actually doing hateful practices like orgies, killing of babies, etc. It seems to me that your God is nothing more than an idol that you worship so he can condone your sin. Of course, you are free to choose.

[88. twilley said the following at 11:30 AM on Dec 1:]

88

BI, #87:

"I honestly do not know what kind of God you are talking about when you say you believe in God. That's certainly not the God of the Bible who says that a marital union can be only between a man and a woman."

The sense that I am getting from this section is that you feel that you wholly understand the issue of homosexuality in the Bible, believe that I am wrong, and believe that you are justified in telling me that I am wrong. That's fine. I have a different understanding of the situation. My understanding is that we have different interpretations of the scriptures, and different understandings of God's will towards homosexuality, and that that's alright. I affirm your right to interpret the scriptures as you see fit, and respect your interpretations as valid. I believe we could have a more productive discussion if you would also recognize my right to interpret the scriptures as I understand them.

"If you want to justify yourself in the public eye, as you like Christians, that's fine, but God condemns what you do as sin."

I am not interested in justifying myself in the public eye, but am trying to be honest about my beliefs. I disagree with you, and do not believe God condemns same-sex partnerships as sinful.

"If you want to know what the Bible says, get knowledge, as this issue is not a matter of interpretation - there is no ground for it anywhere in the Bible."

I have read the Bible numerous times, and I have read huge numbers of sources on this topic, from every imaginable viewpoint. I disagree with you and do believe that scholars can honestly have differing interpretations on this issue in the Bible.

"I had another experience with prejudiced women - they thought all men are sexually driven beasts full of lust who they can easily manipulate and if this did not work out they concluded that these men were either gay or did not love them enough (it's obvious what kind of love they wanted)."

I am sorry that you had a bad experience with a woman, but I am unsure what bearing this has on our discussion. The only thing I can work out is that you are calling me prejudiced, which I find to be rude and uncalled for.

"You still have not answered my last paragraph from the previous post."

My apologies for the oversight, I thought I had gone through the important points, but it seems I missed something.

"Do you know the people in the OT had all kinds of idols which they worshipped by actually doing hateful practices like orgies, killing of babies, etc."

Yes. I have read the Old Testament and am aware of these practices.

"It seems to me that your God is nothing more than an idol that you worship so he can condone your sin. Of course, you are free to choose."

I disagree. I could write more about my testimony, or tell you more about what God is doing in my life or how I came to know God, but I get the sense that you are not listening. What I understand you are doing in this section is setting up a division. What you want to say is that I am not one of you, that I do not worship the same God that you do. That everything I worship is evil, and that you consider me the moral equivalent of someone who sacrifices babies. Then you set up a false choice between the evil you have outlined and the good which you possess but have excluded me from.

Sounds like: http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/11/strategic-mockery.html

I'm not interested in these divisions. We worship the same God, and we try to understand God as well as we can. I'm not interested in insulting you or in comparing you to someone who murders children. That's not important to me. I respect your interpretation of scripture, and I ask you to find some respect for me and mine.

The reason I commented on your original post was to tell you that you were going off topic, and trafficking in stereotypes about gay people which I don't find productive or godly. And I stand by that assessment.

[89. Samantha said the following at 3:06 PM on Dec 1:]

89

twilley#88,"My understanding is that we have different interpretations of the scriptures, and different understandings of God's will towards homosexuality, and that that's alright."

It's not "alright" because it's wrong. Thinking that God believes that something is okay doesn't make it true. God doesn't like homosexuality no matter what you think and that's a fact of life.

[90. BI said the following at 3:23 PM on Dec 1:]

90

twilley,

Words are just words. You say you worship the same God as I do and yet this is not true and I do not worship your God. The God that I worship comes to believers only when they repent of their sins and does not condone some sins over others. I have not chosen who God is – I have chosen only to accept him, and I have not chosen to have two sexes in life and nature. I am not being rude with you – I am giving you analogies which you did not like very much. No sin is justified in God’s eyes no matter on what scale we will use to grade it, and one cannot receive mercy if they do not repent of one’s sins. How can a blind man/woman be cured if s/he thinks s/he is not blind? All I am trying to do is help you. Please do not mistake my passion and desire to help for other kinds of feelings or emotion.

It is easy to be nice with others when things are going well and everything is fine. It is easy to be nice and behave well when you know you will get a reward for this as others will often respond with kindness to you as well. However, when things get rough, when you have no job or you are about to lose your job, when you have a family to feed and the bills keep piling up and you don’t know how you are going to make it another day, when your loved ones have broken your heart, and when your faithful friends have abandoned you, then you do not have good fruits to show off, but you desperately need someone/something to give you inner strength to hold on and continue to perform diligently your duties and still find time to be kind with others and love others even when it hurts so much. What you need is the Spirit of the true God inside of you, not good works that you can boast of so you can justify your sins in the public eye. It is like two young people who claim they love each other forever, and then the years pass by, their first love wears off and their true character is revealed when the testing comes, and is up to them to make sure that their love withstands these trials and tribulations. What will mature tter in the end for these people is not the opinions of others but if their love is everlasting and they are still together. That is the same with God – what will matter in the end is if the Spirit of God is still inside of you. But first you have to receive it and this comes only when you repent of your sins and ask God for mercy and forgiveness. I do not make it with catchy phrases, that’s between you and God – I can only testify and offer you the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness – with the sins done by men and the forgiveness found in Jesus, and then you can make your own choice.

[91. Jim H said the following at 3:26 PM on Dec 1:]

91

As I ponder this climate change debacle, it struck me that the way the scientists behaved is the antithesis of real science – not so much because of the content of the data but because of the secrecy and unwillingness to be open with the data. That is not real science, but rather raw unadulterated AGENDA.

Richard Feynman, in my view, expressed the best description of real, HONEST, science in his “Cargo Cult Science Speech” from 1974.

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

It seems that many scientists involved in climate change research have sold their scientific soul and departed from principles of “bending over backwards utter scientific integrity.”

[92. BI said the following at 11:03 PM on Dec 1:]

92

Ted,

Why do governments think that forcing reductions in CO2 emissions will automatically lead to better and cleaner technologies employed by businesses? Why not businesses come up with new vicious, much more detrimental technologies – e.g. new chemical or toxic waste that will be hidden somewhere in a faraway part of the world that will cause much greater and more lasting damage to the environment? When governments ban something, people usually find a way around the ban. Also, it is much more costly to maintain a ban and other undesired consequences than to find a way to encourage new kinds of behavior and practices. Hence, if governments want new cleaner technologies, they should focus more on encouraging and promoting such technologies. Otherwise, what kind of choices do companies who depend on CO2 emissions have – to lay off people (as if it is not enough as it is) or to find a way around the ban in order to keep up with their production capacity? In general, I do not mind breathing cleaner air in the bigger cities, however, we need companies and businesses employing cleaner technologies and keeping their workers, and certainly not closing all production and restricting existing technologies.

BTW, some environmentalists claim that the world is soon going to run out of oil. If that’s true, we will not need to worry about CO2 emissions at all. Businesses and companies will have to change due to their limited resource. When something is limited, the price shoots up and a lot of companies have to move to another technology. However, no government does want to engage with this issue with facts and data. Instead, if they artificially reduce the CO2 emissions, they somehow promote conserving the current supply of world oil. This is a good way to make money during an economic crisis using environment as a pretext (I specifically reference the proposed legislation for carbon trading) and indirectly taxing businesses which rely on oil. And, yet, we do not even know if such measures will do nearly enough in reducing CO2 emissions and pollution in the environment, besides collecting huge amounts of money for the governments. It seems to me that the governments’ incentive is to collect money by any means in the short run, and not to really give proper incentives for long-lasting changes toward better and cleaner technologies without businesses having to lay off people or go out of business.

[93. twilley said the following at 7:47 AM on Dec 2:]

93

Samantha, #89:

I fully respect your beliefs, and am not interested in fighting you. We disagree with this issue, and I'm comfortable with that.

[94. twilley said the following at 8:14 AM on Dec 2:]

94

BI, #90:

Thank you for your offer of help. I believe you when you say that you are being passionate and that you desire to help me.

I hope you have a good day.

[95. Patrik said the following at 2:43 AM on Dec 4:]

95

Let me as an outsider, give a comment on what I see here. I am a European, have a Ph.D. in Environmental Science, and am a Christian. (Contrary to what some of you may believe, this is not a self-contradiction :-). I now work as an engineer and do not do environmental research.

I have read some of Boundless' articles and found them encouraging. I have not commented on blogs before, but I now feel moved to make an attempt.

It strucks me in as a bit odd that of the comments I see here, on Ted Slater's original blog entry, very few relate to his major point, namely that data has been manipulated. Ted started off by saying "So, now that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has been found to be fraudulent, what's next?"

I challenge Ted's conclusion. If you check the underlaying data for global climate change in general, or, for the non-specialist, some follow-up articles to the articles Ted link to, they do not support his interpretation that "scientists at the influential Climatic Research Unit made up data and manipulated it to support their agenda-driven and predetermined conclusions."

See for example:

Climate change scientist at centre of leaked email row 'absolutely' stands by his findings

Climategate: Phil Jones accused of making error of judgment by colleague

I will try to look at this tread a for a few days to see if there is any response to my post. Then I will leave.

Wish you all the best.

[96. BI said the following at 10:56 AM on Dec 4:]

96

Patrik,

Thanks for your post! I'll admit I don't know (as there is another post on this topic). However, we all know that global temperatures and the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere have been rising rapidly for the last several decades. What my main suspicion is what the cause and effect relationship is between these two events. Which is causing which, or they both might be caused or linked to some other factor. I have no doubt that there is manmade global pollution but are CO2 gases the worst? What about other kind of pollution - e.g. toxic waste released by chemical plants? Why is no one talking about these things any more?

[97. Ted Slater said the following at 11:49 AM on Dec 4:]

97

Thanks for visiting, Patrik. No need to visit and leave; you're welcome to stay and join in this and other conversations. :-)

The second article you point to has a colleague accusing Phil Jones -- one of the world's most influential proponents of the theory of man-made global warming -- of "making an error of judgment." That implies that Jones simply made a mistake. Oops. I question, though, how Jones' encouragement to destroy data and prohibit free discussion of this issue can be a simple mistake or "error of judgment."

Jones said in an e-mail: "I've just completed Mike's trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 to hide the decline." That sounds like manipulation to me, to be honest.

Elsewhere he wrote, "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone." In another e-mail he wrote, "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Why delete this data, and these e-mails, unless he has something to hide?

Jones wrote, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" There he is again, prohibiting research that challenges his already-formed conclusions about global warming.

And what is the goal of promoting this man-caused global warming crisis? The chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made is clear recently: higher taxes, monitoring people's energy use, and monitoring what people eat. Control and invasion of privacy -- that's what the politicians and bureaucrats and globalists want, and certain scientists seems oddly more than happy to skew the data to support the need for such tax increases and control.

I continue to maintain that this global warming fear-mongering is not about protecting the environment. It's about making lots of money off the backs of normal people, and controlling the minute details of their lives. The criminals no longer hide in the alleys; they speak from behind UN podiums.

[98. Ted Slater said the following at 12:09 PM on Dec 4:]

98

BI (#96), you wrote that "we all know that global temperatures and the amount of CO2 gases in the atmosphere have been rising rapidly for the last several decades."

I'll have to disagree with that premise. The truth is that the earth has actually cooled down over the past decade (as has solar activity, interestingly enough). And these facts frustrate those who earn a living promoting global warming anxiety.

I also have to challenge your proposition that CO2 is "pollution" similar to "toxic waste released by chemical plants." They're different. CO2 is plant food; toxic waste is, well, toxic.

[99. BI said the following at 1:12 PM on Dec 4:]

99

Ted, 98

Since this is not my profession and I am not a scientist and I am not knowledgeable enough, I try to avoid taking extreme positions. Hence, I simply try to raise my suspicions without undermining the work of so many scientists whose work I may not fully understand. You have posed good questions and it is always good to have confronting ideas so we can find out the truth eventually. When dealing with such complicated global events, it’s really hard for me to attack someone without any reliable data or evidence – e.g. when you said that the earth is cooling while most scientists would give you plenty of facts and data for the contrary. And yes, I do not call CO2 a pollutant, just the opposite – I was trying to ask the question if actually other pollutants are more responsible for the rise in global pollution and perhaps global temperatures. In addition, if I believe continually in conspiracy theories about everything, I’ll doubt every single piece of news that comes out in the news or in the science field of research, I’ll even doubt that Boundless has some very secret agenda, and probably become schizophrenic. I know such a colleague and it’s really hard to talk with him (I was actually defending global warming in some way just for the sake of argument), although I enjoy that he never takes for granted and asks questions that others do not ask. After all, the secular world leaders also do care to find the truth of how to best take care of the world as this is all they have in this life despite of the competing interests for money and power, and they do not have any other reward in heaven.

[100. BDB said the following at 2:48 PM on Dec 4:]

100

Patrik (#95) while all the data the scientists have may not have been made up fraudulently, it's also clear that they attempted to suppress any data that disagreed with their conclusions.

In short, they engaged in profesional misconduct.

In the U.S., if a prosecutor does this, the defendant has his conviction vacated and the prosecutors are personally faced with misconduct fines and/or criminal prosecution.

If an accounting firm destroys documents, the peopl who shredded the documents can go to jail for obstruction of justice. This has happened durinf various U.S. financial scandals. Again, it's professional misconduct that has been criminalized.

The main concern is that these scientists have been preventing other true data from coming to the forefront. Does that data explain why global temperatures stopped rising over the last 10 years? I don't know. If we gave the contrary researchers a few million dollars to research the question could they find it? Maybe.

What is clear is that all the rush to impose climate-change costs on the developed world and transfer weath to the developing world was an agenda based on fraud. Until the fraud is sorted out, world governments should not do anything t engage in this kind of economic suicide.

And frankly, if the climate models didn't predict a decade-long cooling trend, it's clear that there's something wrong with the assumptions underlying those models. They MUST be wrong, otherwise they would have predicted this. They didn't predict it, the models are wrong.

From a public policy perspective, it is terribly, terribly foolish to make policy decisions based on what are clearly flawed models.