climate change2a
Ethics & Morality

Climate change is not simply an issue of ecology, but also of injustice

This is a guest post by Joe Ware – Christian Aid‘s Church and Campaigns Journalist.

_______________________

This week we witnessed a minor political miracle. Less than three months from what is likely to be one of the most fiercely fought general election campaigns in recent history David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all signed the same policy pledge.

After the trouble the Lib Dems found themselves in following their promise on tuition fees, getting political leaders to sign any kind of pre-election pledge is hard work. To get rival party leaders to sign the same one when they’re desperate to show how much they disagree with each other is even more remarkable.

Which all goes to underline its significance. The agreement they put their names to was a promise to seek a strong global deal to tackle climate change and importantly end the use of unabated coal in power generation – the most polluting kind.

The dangers of climate change have been warned by scientists for years. Recently economists and business leaders have started to speak up about the financial risks, among them the Governor of the Bank of England, something underlined by the volatility of the oil price and the plunging costs of solar energy. Now we see politicians putting aside their differences over the issue. In a culture of Punch and Judy politics this is to be celebrated. Later this year the Pope is set to publish his Papal Encyclical on the environment which will put this firmly on the agenda of church denominations around the world.

Already faith leaders are speaking out. Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for an Apartheid style boycott of fossil fuels, something echoed by the Diocese of Oxford and young Christians at General Synod last week. The World Council of Churches and other denominations have already divested and this movement is gaining momentum at a rapid pace. One finance executive described it as “one of the fastest-moving debates I think I’ve seen in my 30 years in markets”.

The reason this is moving up the agenda is that so many different groups are coming to realise the importance of tackling climate change. The party leaders signed their agreement in part thanks to the Show The Love campaign which saw members of the public sharing what they loved that would be affected by climate change. The movement included a rainbow coalition from the Women’s Institute to Surfers Against Sewage, as well as the British Medical Association, the bosses of Unilever and Aviva and faith based organisations such as Christian Aid, Cafod and Tearfund. Celebrities Stephen Fry and Jarvis Cocker, among others, even appeared in a short film produced by director Ridley Scott’s production company:

Climate change is no longer simply an issue of ecology. It is not something left simply for the eco warriors and the bunny huggers, it’s much too important for that. There is clearly plenty in the Bible about caring for God’s creation, from Genesis 2:15: ‘The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it‘ (NIV) to Isaiah 24, which highlights the ecological consequences of immorality: ‘The earth lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant‘ (NRSV).

But climate change is, at its core, an issue of injustice. Those that are least responsible for creating the problem, are the ones who are suffering the most. Livelihoods are being destroyed, people are forced to leave their homes and extreme weather events make widows and orphans. Many of these people are our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. As a global network not operating on short term election cycles or profit margins, Christians and the Church are in a unique positon to speak prophetically for those without a voice.

James 1:27 says: ‘Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world‘ (NIV). In Jesus’ eschatological story in Matthew 25, He speaks about the people who haven’t fed the hungry and thirsty, clothed the naked or cared for the sick and imprisoned. Verse 45 says: ‘Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me‘ (CEV).

We await with interest the input of Pope Francis to this later in the year. But as Christians we have plenty of reason already to act and encourage our leaders to put climate justice at the heart of whichever Government is in power after the election.

To quote the Psalmist (in the words of the banner unfurled at Synod by the young Christians): ‘May God defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy’ (Ps 72:4). Amen to that.

  • “climate change is, at its core, an issue of injustice. Those that are least responsible for creating the problem, are the ones who are suffering the most”

    Very true, but for the wrong reason. The reason some people are suffering is because the modern west, having used hydrocarbon fuels to progress to an advanced society, is now demanding that developing countries stop using hydrocarbons to do the same thing.

    So we have charities forcing African people to carry on living on subsistence farms rather than do the same as we did and move from an agricultural society to a manufacturing society. The charities do this because they have this view that agricultural work is “better” than working in a factory, where better is according to their personal moral code. What right do such people have to impose their moral code on others? Especially from people whose ancestors worked in factories and who worked hard to better the lives of their children.

    The facts speak for themselves. China is progressing fast because it ignores western charities demands. Salaries there have been increasing at fantastic rates such that within only a few years people who worked on farms with no electricity now have TVs, fridges, cars, etc. Some people see that as a retrograde step, but for some reason such people tend to live and benefit from modern society’s progress like cheap food and good health.

    Climate change is not destroying livelihoods, nor causing extreme weather events, so no need to pile on the guilt trip. Extreme weather is not increasing, and lives lost are decreasing even from the few extreme weather events that do occur. Why? Because science and modern technology means that people don’t need to live on flood plains in badly built homes. Look up the figures of hurricanes and typhoons and tornadoes and also the figures on deaths due to floods in areas like Pakistan.

    • avi barzel

      Since this a religious blog, let me say “amen” to that.

  • sarky

    I really struggle with the whole climate change thing. Time and time again observations don’t math predictions (temperature stabilising/cooling, increased ice sheets etc). This whole area of science is vulnerable to data manipulation by vested interests. The last big study had many of the scientists involved refusing to sign off because they didn’t agree with the conclusion.
    I may be cynical, but this whole move to sustainable energy seems to be more about cutting our reliance on fossil fuels from unstable regimes than a fear for the earth’s future.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Aieeeeee!!!!! I find myself agreeing with you again…

      • sarky

        Sorry!

    • John Matthews

      the last big study had scientists refusing to sign because governments stepped in and altered the wording.
      The science has been clear since 1970s. If you deny man made climate change your on par with creationits/anti-vaxers on a scientific level.

      • Coniston

        I guess that in the future dozens of PhDs will be written about the psychological reasons why climate change deniers are so impervious to reason and scientific evidence.

        • avi barzel

          More likely how a pseudo-science was pushed through and maintained for so long, how many trillions were made by some and how many were destroyed and what we need to do to avoid such lethal mega-scams again.

          • Coniston
          • avi barzel

            Hahahaha! That’s your source? JOHN COOK’S highly censored, childishly rude and sneakily mis-named alarmist site? John Cook who likes to dress up in Nazi uniforms, pretended to be a scientist, but turns out to have only worked as a cartoonist? Surely you’re jesting.

          • Coniston

            I know little about John Cook except that he majored in solar physics. It’s a great pity that you choose to present no reasoned evidence but go off on an irrational rant – which was exactly what my first post was about. Thanks for proving my point.

          • avi barzel

            Um, what point would that be? The “reasoned evidence” is that Cook misrepresented himself, that he treats his dissenting guests rudely, including well-known scientists, and deletes their comments to make it looks like he’s winning all the time. He also misunderstands and falsifies data, likeas with his 97% consensus paper, which has been widely refuted and rejected by the warmist camp as well. So, total lack of credibility and integrity along with improper conduct= bad source. That would be my point.

            If you were expecting me to get into some grand science-based refutation for no reason and without specifics and context, it shows you are new to rational debates. Familiarize your self with the basic issues, background and the literature, grow up and come back with better.

      • Stephen Raftery

        I thought that the whole point of the scientific method is that it is never complete: there is always more research to be done, and this year’s ‘consensus’ is next year’s outdated dogma.

        • avi barzel

          Not so with our spanking brand-new “post-Modern science” paradigm. Science can now be “settled” conclusively and for all time by fiat, votes in professional associations, through legislation, by committees, popular acclaim, snazzy PR, mantras and chants and the usual power and money, of course.

      • avi barzel

        1970s? I recall a global cooling scare. What happened to that one?

        • Uncle Brian

          They changed the name.

      • avi barzel

        Lying a bit? The science isn’t clear even now and not even a credible warmist would make such a stupid claim. The majority of scientists don’t sign on to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis because there are major issues over credibility of data, methodology, theoretical basis, quality of computer based models…and questions about need to lose, suppress and deny historical data, the influence of political activisysts, agencies, governmwnts and industry, as well as systemic censorship and persecution of researchers.

        No one denies climate change…climate changes by definition; scientists question theories about human roles, if any, in climate change. The skeptics are largely in the mainstream science camp and the proportion of young earth creationists and anti-vaxers is the same as among warmists…fairly small. Lying only makes your argument look poor and desperate.

        You are too young and uneducated to be taking up space here, just like your sidekick, Coniston. Read a bit and wait until you hit puberty. By then, maybe girls will distract you and you will spare science from your inanity.

    • Aaron D Highside

      ‘…cutting our reliance on fossil fuels from unstable regimes’ …like Russia. Agreed. Simple solution: fracking. And while I am grumbling, if you have the wettest winter for 250 years, the Somerset Levels are going to flood – and if you want to know whose fault that is (no not the Tories), I refer you to His Grace.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        To pick a nit. It was actually the wettest *Met* *Office* winter on record.

        According to the Met Office, no matter what the temperature might be, rain in October, November & March did not fall in winter and so does not count.

        The fact that rain in October or November might have (at least partially) filled areas where rain water is naturally stored is irrelevant according to them.

  • Athanasius

    All three leaders signed a pledge, eh? Bet they keep it beside the copy of the Scottish Vow.

  • Graham Wood

    Should we laugh or cry at this, another litany of nonsense about “climate change”?
    As for so many climate alarmists it is riddled with assumptions, ideological, as opposed to scientific baggage, and the usual call for hand-wringing for a problem which does not exist.
    Because man-made “global warming” dare not speak its name any more the old worn cliché of climate change is trotted out once again as some sort of proof that there is a massive threat to mankind from changes in climate which have taken place for millennia.
    But no, it has to be AGW – i.e. man-made, in spite of the fact that there is not the slightest evidence for this, scientific or otherwise. In fact the consensus of scientists of either persuasion is that no earth warming has taken place over the past 18 years or so – from whatever cause. (hat tip – likely to be something to do with sun).
    As a fully paid up “denier” of AGW I am still waiting to hear the evidence for any correlation, so glibly assumed in the piece, between local weather patterns (dubbed here as “extreme weather events”), and the supposed plight of “widows and orphans around the world, to the seamless plea for a “prophetic voice” from Christians.
    One is reminded of the ex A of C threatening one Anthony Blair with the wrath of the climate God, unless he acted, and his dire warnings of “millions or billions” of deaths due to AGW.
    Come on ! How many people have actually DIED from AGW, as opposed to its reverse, that is death and related effects of cold or hypothermia in the UK and rest of the northern hemisphere? Any evidence please?
    I see Joe Ware begs the question as to what any politician can do to “tackle” (meaningless gibberish) climate change, but then that only reflects the absurdity and emptiness of the ‘warmists’ crazed ideology.
    Just keep repeating the empty clichés and surely there will always be enough of the naive and the gullible to swallow the bait, including the three fools united in their stupidity.

    • thespecialone

      You have it spot on Graham. I am a fully paid up “denier” too. When all 3 “leaders” agree, you just know it must be a scam.

      • I’m very cross about this.

        I think you can go further and say that if you find yourself on the same side of an argument as Prince Charles and Nick Clegg then you are on the wrong side of the argument.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “…But no, it has to be AGW – i.e. man-made…”
      This is pivotal to the Green Party agenda. The Greens are fundamentally communists. Blaming man for climate change is important to them as an excuse for their socialist policies. “Climate change is all due to capitalism, therefore we must continue the class struggle”. One way they want to do this is to tax the economy to a standstill – literally. Even to take it into negative growth. My point is that Greens are as cynical about enviromental issues as LibLabCon

    • I’m very cross about this.

      A much better summary than the original article.

    • magnolia

      Fully with you. History will look back on this as the biggest most unjust, common-people hating scam of the 20th and early 21st Centuries. If you read the history of the genesis of the perceived problems the names and the money are very instructive indeed,

      For those with less desire to research just look at those who profit from selling “carbon remission” and jet off here there and everywhere to grandstand about the problem, and you might just see an extreme hypocrisy alert.

      Jonathon Porritt was a good guy, but the Green Party sadly got taken over by Marxists who manufactured Agenda 21 to be a repressive tool for humans, now to be blamed for so much as breathing and kept cowering and subordinate. The church should distance itself from this bankster funded evil, and align itself with those who love people.

      • magnolia

        Maurice Strong was a key early mover of this ghastly business. He thought that modern industrial civilization might need to come down for the world to live as he saw it as “sustainable”. Oh, and also the nation state, personal property rights, and probably a few other things. Maybe also the Church, as this lot likes to lump that in too.

        Know your enemy.

        • magnolia

          Furthermore Maurice Strong was an anti Church socialist multimillionaire, also an occultist on the board of the Lucis Trust, which had loads of crazy ideas and changed its name from something darker and nastier, I am afraid.

          We really do need to put the work in to know where ideas are coming from, and not just float nicely by.

  • I’m very cross about this.

    In reading this I was waiting to get to the paragraph where common sense was introduced, it never came.
    There is absolutely no empirical evidence that climate change is a problem, climate changes, get used to it. By far the greatest danger to the welfare of the poorest is the lack of a reliable energy supply, the lack of it means the poorest cook on open fires with the resultant damage to health.
    It’s easy living here in the comfortable west to have our Rachel Carson moments and decide what’s best for the world without considering the consequences and in the same way that Carson was wrong so are all the Luvvies, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron. All we can hope is that they kill less people than Carson was indirectly responsible for.
    His Grace is a champion of free speech but he really needs to consider his editorial policy regarding what is published here.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    So, LibLabCon are jumping on the ecology bandwagon by signing up to a rather vague-sounding pledge to try harder to do something about climate change. I wonder if this has something to do with an impending election and a rise in support for the Greens, or have the three leaders had a sudden and miraculously-synchronised conversion to environmentalism?

    I am hugely skeptical about this. I think it is a pity that environmental issues get hijacked by political parties (including the Greens), asa vote-getter. The Greens are a trojan horse; a fluffy eco-friendly exteriror masks a rather unpleasant Marxist interior with all the usual trappings of class hatred and authoritarianism. To me, they are the Socialist Workers Party with a compost heap. LibLabCon are jumping on the same bandwagon to bolster their own electoral support. None of this has anything to do with justice for those suffering the results of environmental damage.

    That the climate is changing is indisputable. It has always changed over the millenia, sometime with catastrophic results. Whether current changes are due to mans activities is an ongoing debate. Poliiticians will try to capitalise on public uncertainty over the issue for their own ends.

  • educynic

    Nah,

    The same old bandwagon lot – Fry fresh from his condemnation of God.

    If we were serious about these issues we’d have the most enormous nuclear building programme, and the same lot would protest against that. We would also stop population migration from low energy economies to the high energy economy of the UK and curb population growth within the UK where we are expected to grow to over 70 million. But politicians want that to keep the economy growing.

    If we bothered about the weak suffering, we’d stop the 10% biofuel requirement in the EU which kills a few hundred thousand a year by moving land from food production to fuel production, raising food prices and starving the poor. We’d get rid of the Common Agricultural policy that damages third world countries’ agriculture by dumping surpluses in their markets and denying them access to our food markets. (We have yet to hear a word from the Church of England about these issues.)

    Joe Ware’s post and the video are tokenism. Let’s tinker, look good and feel good. Here’s a better video:

    http://youtu.be/-e2U2cYcPro

  • ClimateLearner

    A vapid article. I suspect the author is enjoying his saviour role so much that he has not taken the time to study the evidence for alarm over our impact on climate. That evidence is negligible. Note that we must have an impact. Note that a warming impact is a plausible one because of our emissions of CO2. Note further that this impact is so far both modest and beneficial. Note further again that those who say the future impact will be catastrophic are doing so on faith alone. Faith in the cult of CAGW. Check out the NIPCC reports for a more rational view of past, present, and future climate variation.

  • Dominic Stockford

    The Christian Party does not agree one bit. Yes, steward wisely, but partof that is to use what God has given us wisely – and he’s given us loads of coal.

  • DanJ0

    *Sets up popcorn stall for when Avi arrives*

    • avi barzel

      Harrumph.

  • I could spend ages doing a carefully worded fisking of just about everything in this article. But why should I when two words encapsulate it all: Utter bullsh*t

  • len

    If fry`s on the case God must be to blame…

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Except if he doesn’t believe He exists, he’ll have to find another scapegoat

  • The picture of Stephen Fry did it for Happy Jack, sorry.

    • Pubcrawler

      I stopped taking it seriously at “Christian Aid‘s Church and Campaigns Journalist”.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Just the two words ‘Christian Aid’ did it for me…

        Their CEO once had a Muslim PA you know.

        • The Explorer

          Maybe their CEO was influenced by the BBC’s choice for head of religious broadcasting.

      • You got that far!

        • Pubcrawler

          True, title should have warned me off before then.

    • The Explorer

      It would have for me, too, if I’d got that far.

  • carl jacobs

    There is a suspicious lack of “How should we then live?” in this article. Assume the truth of the article for the sake of argument. What should be done about it? Well, let’s consider two of the biggest consumers of energy:

    1. Private automobiles. We know the Left hates cars. It’s the most efficient and effective personal transportation system in the history of man. But it has also liberated people from place. The Left desires control and control is facilitated if populations are relatively static. People still need to move around, however. So the Left would offer public transportation in place of the automobile. The implication being highly centralized high density housing. Spread is a function of the auto. The new eco-friendly state would have to bring population and workplace back together.

    2. Air Conditioning. People have grown quite fond of cool buildings in summer. But it takes a lot of energy to cool all that air. You really want to reduce your carbon footprint? Turn off your AC, and deal with the heat. Remember also that we have just abolished cars and recentrilized the population. So you have sweltering heat in large tenement apartment buildings. We have returned to NY in 1900. Evidently, this is the ecological version of paradise.

    It’s no wonder the eco-warriors never talk about this. Arm-waiving cannot magically produce a solar power technology capable of replacing the power grid. “We want you to sweat in crowded high-rise apartments to save the planet” isn’t what you call a winning message. So they resort to fear mongering.

    • “Assume the truth of the article for the sake of argument.”

      Assuming this article is correct, why not focus your mind on solutions. Are there none?

      • carl jacobs

        Nuclear power, and the improvement of battery technology. I have always thought that petro-chemicals were too valuable to waste on gasoline.

        But there is another aspect to this, Jack. There is a utopianism about the eco-warriers. They seem to think they can maintain the benefits of a modern economy (i.e. health care) without the infrastructure of a modern economy (i.e. centralized power production.) Anyways, that’s the generous interpretation. The not-so-generous interpretation is that they view (other) people as an infestation that must be culled.

        • John Matthews

          its certainly a failure of previous governments & to a lesser extent this 1 for not getting nuclear plants replaced. However there is also too much pushback on nimbyism on green energy ie solar/wind.
          Green is not at a stage where it could power our homes efficiently but if were not investing now were going to get left behind very quickly & we can not claim to be leaders in thi field.
          I accept oil will and needs to be around for a considerable amount of time but coal – by far the worst offender needs to go fast.

          • William Lewis

            There is no need for us to claim to be leaders in the field of renewable energy, but if we happen to be then it should not be at the expense of the old and infirm trying to heat their houses, nor the heavily indebted tax payer forced to cover government subsidies.

          • avi barzel

            The beauty about coal is that it’s not going away. It’s right under our feet. Almost everywhere and a lot of it. A product of stupendous amount of once living plants from the Precambrian and Carboniferous which flourished during periods of unprecedented…global warming. It can be burned cleanly and the up-side, that’s right, the up-side, is that it generates great quantities of the unjustly maligned CO2…the food of plants and the readon for the recent greening if the deserts and lush regrowth of our forests.

      • Shadrach Fire

        You can’t create solutions for something that is not true.

        • Do be quiet ………….

        • carl jacobs

          Shadrach

          Don’t be offended by Jack’s comment below. He’s awfully lonely on this thread. And he does have a difficult choice ahead. Should he vote SNP or Green?

          • Happy Jack is considering establishing a local Catholic Worker Movement branch.

            ““Don’t worry about being effective. Just concentrate on being faithful to the truth.”
            (Dorothy Day)

          • carl jacobs

            If you like, I can post a link to the Internationale. That might make you feel better.

          • Umm …. not everyone who opposes capitalism is a Communist. It’s too easy to think that and to dismiss their critique that way.

            “My whole life so far, my whole experience has been that our failure has been not to love enough. This conviction brought me to a rejection of the radical movement after my early membership in the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World, and the Communist affiliates I worked with.”
            (Dorothy Day)

            “The world would become better off If people tried to become better.And people would become better If they stopped trying to become better off.”
            (Peter Maurin)

          • carl jacobs

            The Internationale is not just the property of Communists. It is associated with the entire spectrum of Socialism and the Left.

          • Carl, are you trying to wind up Happy Jack? It’s an atheist anthem that fosters envy and division.

            “There are no supreme saviours
            Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
            Producers, let us save ourselves,
            Decree the common salvation.
            So that the thief expires,
            So that the spirit be pulled from its prison,
            Let us fan our forge ourselves
            Strike the iron while it is hot.
            This is the final struggle
            Let us group together, and tomorrow
            The Internationale
            Will be the human race.”

          • carl jacobs

            From Wikipedia: “The Internationale” has been celebrated by socialists, communists, anarchists, democratic socialists, and social democrats.

            Of course it’s atheist. The Left is functionally atheist. Left-wing religion uses “God” as a convenient abstract vehicle to carry moral concepts.

          • But you have yet to define ‘Left’. If seeing the capitalist economic system as tending towards corruption and injustice is being ‘Left’ it’s too wide a definition. The ‘Left’ has to be defined by a political method and programme for achieving change.

          • carl jacobs

            I am more interested in why Jack – who is famously neither right nor left – should get spun up over the association of the traditional Left wing anthem with the broad spectrum of the political Left simply because it is atheist?

            I can only think of one reason why that would be the case…

          • Well Jack cannot fathom your mind Carl, so you will have to enlighten him.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. Perhaps because Jack – faithful orthodox RC that he is – wants to synthesize his RCism with his Leftist predisposition, and doesn’t like being reminded of the contradiction.

            Could be…

          • Now Carl, you must know the Catholic Church teaches a “preferential option for the poor and vulnerable”. So there is no conflict between Jack’s views and the Church’s. If that’s your definition of a ‘Leftist predisposition’ then Jack is guilty as charged.

            Or is a ‘Leftist predisposition’ any person who doubts the capitalist system’s actual ability to bring health and wealth to all in an ethical manner and wants to do something about this? Again, guilty as charged. Jack doesn’t accept the protestant misrepresentation of the parables of Jesus as teaching us to be good capitalists.

            Tell Jack, do you believe a system that results in 20% of the world’s population consuming 80% of the world’s resources to be in accord with the Gospel? And do you really subscribe to the notion that economic growth will eventually trickle down and lift everyone out of absolute poverty?

            For Jack, the moral test of any society or economic system is its effects on its most vulnerable members – nationally and internationally. The challenge is bringing about a revolution of the heart through the Gospel, starting with each one of us, and not through stirring up enmity, insurrection, protest and class warfare.

            So, yes, Jack is neither ‘right’ nor ‘left’ and he is a Roman Catholic.

          • carl jacobs

            None of which explains …

            [A]re you trying to wind up Happy Jack?

            Why should merely stating the fact that the Internationale is claimed by a broad spectrum of the Left cause Jack to be wound up? Unless Jack fancies himself a Democratic Socialist. That would explain the reaction.

          • What is ‘Democratic Socialism’?

            Truth be told, Jack is not a great fan of liberal pluralist democracy or socialism. Experience shows that neither works for the common good.
            What winds Jack up is your construction of the world of politics into simplistic ‘Left’ (atheist, unworkable socialism) and ‘Right’ (God fearing capitalism).

            And you, Carl? Do you believe the exploitation and injustice that is inherent in modern global capitalism is moral – or is it just the best of a bad deal that totally depraved man can achieve?

          • carl jacobs

            What winds Jack up is your construction of the world of politics

            Jinking Right! Breaking Left! Popping Flares! You are throwing that aircraft all over the sky. Not a bad bit of evasive flying either. And yet there is still an AIM-9 closing on your engine exhaust. Yep, you are offering all sorts of interesting topics for me to address. And we could get to them if only …

            I said:

            The Internationale is not just the property of Communists. It is associated with the entire spectrum of Socialism and the Left.

            To which you responded:

            Carl, are you trying to wind up Happy Jack? It’s an atheist anthem that fosters envy and division.

            Which has nothing to do with any “construction of the world of politics into simplistic ‘Left’ … and ‘Right.’ ” You were clearly objecting to the association of atheism with the broad spectrum of the Left. You are not an atheist. That is why you could be wound up.

            C’mon, Jack. Honest confession is good for the soul.

          • “You were clearly objecting to the association of atheism with the broad spectrum of the Left.”

            It’s more your association of Christianity with the ‘broad spectrum of the Right’ that bugs Jack and the assumption that capitalism cannot become more ethical.

            The Internationale is not only atheist. It proposes violent revolution, being based on an ideology of class struggle and warfare to gain control of the state and the economy.

            If you must know, the closest label for Happy Jack in political terms regarding the state and the economy is probably ‘Christian anarchism’, with the odd glance towards non-violent ‘Libertarian socialism’. The clue was in his references to the Catholic Workers Movement and his previous support on here for Michael Foot.

          • carl jacobs

            ka-BOOM!

            Make sure you tuck properly when that ejection seat fires.
            😀

          • No contradiction between Jack’s views on capitalism and his Roman Catholic faith, if that’s what you were aiming at. On the other hand, you would be hard pressed to square the circle between scriptural morality and market practices which claim to be morally neutral and yet treat people as commodities and mere units of production.

            Have a read:

            http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/Just%20money%20combined%20final.pdf

          • carl jacobs

            No, Jack. I was seeking to shoot down this whole “neither right nor left” concept. Nothing remains of it except a smoking hole in the terrain.

            Excuse me while I go paint another red rose underneath my cockpit canopy. 🙂

          • carl jacobs

            I’ll get around to reading that today, Jack. Looks interesting. Not sure when.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            It’s more your association of Christianity with the ‘broad spectrum of the Right’ that bugs Jack…

            I don’t actually associate the broad spectrum of the Right with Christianity. That’s why I have repeatedly characterized the emergence in the US of the Christian Coalition as a disaster. But that doesn’t change the atheist nature of the political Left. If you read the history of the political Left, you will find its source in the “Enlightenment” and pre-revolutionary France. It proceeds through the French Revolution to the Paris Commune to Marx and Engels, and eventually to Lenin and Russia. It has always been aggressively atheist.

            What is it that characterizes the “Left?” It is the belief that evil arises in man because of externals. Money. Class. Religion. Capital. Political structure. Man is a prisoner of externals who waits for his liberation. The political purpose of the Left is to struggle against evil by using collective power to re-organizing externals. Man is therefore a perfectable being whose nature can be re-fashioned according to politics. That’s why the Soviets killed off so many class enemies with “old ways of thinking.” They were consciously attempting to create the New Soviet Man.

            The Left begins with very specific understandings of man and human nature and his place in temporal existence that place it at odds with theistic religion. It was born in atheism and it lives in atheism. The Right is not coterminious with the Christian faith, but it doesn’t begin with an antithetical premise either.

            … and the assumption that capitalism cannot become more ethical.

            You have a vision. But anytime I ask you to instantiate that vision, you fall completely apart. I am not much impressed with unrealizable visions. The intention to do something good does not mitigate the extraordinary damage that is done by people who wish to “fix” the market because they think it unfair. Leftism creates poverty and misery and want and bloodshed. It doesn’t matter to me that it imagines itself creating a new ethical paradise on Earth. I care what it does and not what it says it will do.

            The Internationale is not only atheist. It proposes violent revolution, being based on an ideology of class struggle and warfare to gain control of the state and the economy.

            You don’t need to tell me that. You need to explain why it is so universally adopted on the Left. I’m just the messenger here.

          • “If you read the history of the political Left, you will find its source in the “Enlightenment” and pre-revolutionary France.”

            Whilst Jack agrees with your criticism of socialism, he sees you are defining every movement opposed to modern capitalism as ‘Left’ and, by definition, ‘socialism’.

          • bluedog

            Any relation of Doris Day?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “So they resort to fear mongering”

      More like “eco-worriers” than “eco-warriors”

  • carl jacobs

    Spend some time on the Christian Aid website. Investigate specifically the tab marked “Policy” at the top of the page. You will discover several PDF files on a range of international issues.

    It’s a typical Left-Wing activist organization, government issue, one each.

    • Define ‘Left-Wing activist organisation’.

      The Rich, the Poor, and the Future of the World: Equity in a constrained world

      “Inequality in access to and use of natural resources is driving both global poverty and environmental destruction. The wealthiest 20% of the world’s population account for 80% of consumption of global resources. Increasingly, what we are seeing is a ‘natural resource grab’ by the wealthy and powerful. The poorest 20% of people, by contrast, lack the resources to have even a decent standard of living.

      This report questions whether there is an alternative model for development that can deliver adequate standards of living for all but without high consumption rates and unsustainable environmental damage.”

      Is that ‘Left-Wing’ – or an attempt to bring a sense of morality into world affairs?

      • carl jacobs

        I don’t know, Jack. Tell me what they mean by “an alternate model for development?” What do they mean by “high consumption?” What is an “adequate standard of living?”

        Oh, and btw. Do you honestly expect to be able to implement any of these definitions without some form of coercive gov’t imposition? See, we have arrived at a definition of “Leftism.”

        The use of coercive gov’t power to attempt to re-fashion the nature of man so he will accept a new vision of human economic behavior.

        We can call it “The New Soviet Man” if you like. That phrase has form.

        • avi barzel

          Comrade Zhak Is ready for the collective farm. Through correct Marxist-Leninist economic theory, we can objectively determine on his behalf the scientifically precise amounts of beet soup consumption we can alot to him for an adequate standard of nutrition. Because “Masha,” our dearly beloved tractor from the Sverdlovsk factory No. 57, passed away from lack of engine coolant (drunk by the reactionary criminal, Evgenyi), Zhak will be required to pull the communal plow. For this he can draw 200 grammes of salt pork from the commissary every morning to add to his breakfast barley tea.

          • carl jacobs

            Citizen Evgenyi is a Wrecker of the Revolution. We should therefore probably shoot his family for being bourgeois.

            As for Comrade Zhak. His contributions to this weblog indicate he is a probably a Right Deviationist disciple of Bukharin. He has also spoken well of Trotsky in the past, a well-known enemy of the Revolution and a principal conspirator in opposition to the will of the people as expressed through the Vanguard of the Masses. Comrade Yezhov has been informed.

            An allocation of 200 grams of salt pork is therefore probably excessive until such time as his loyalty to the revolution has been established. It is recommended that his loyalty be assessed over a period of three months by the counting the number of acres cultivated. If Comrade Zhak meets his production quota, then his food ration may be restored.

            Assuming of course that he is not arrested by Comrade Yezhov.

          • avi barzel

            The Party is stern, but merciful, Tovarishtch Karl. Of course, the running dog revanchist Evgenyi had to be disciplined with a single bullet from a Makarov to the temple, which his family paid for, but they have been resettled to Magadan Peninsula to cut timber for the Motherland in one of the many worker resorts there.

            As for Comrade Zhak and his 200 grammes, of sala, yes, I think that would be the correct approach. Although, it would make good joke to tell Zhak that he must first meet a five year plan, da?

          • carl jacobs

            Comrade Zhak!

            The Party has decided to allow you to prove your loyalty to the Revolution. A true revolutionary worker will display the spirit of Stakhanov and fulfill his quota. In order to overcome the drought foisted upon the People by the Wrecker Trotsky, we charge you to fulfill the five-year wheat quota of Shukhov Kolkhoz in the next three months. Sustained progress towards the goal will result in an extra ration of one hundred milliliters of water per day.

            Comrade Stalin is watching, Comrade Zhak! Do your duty for the Revolution, the People, and our Great Leader.

    • thespecialone

      I used to give money to CA every year in the little envelopes. Then on a day out I walked into a church that had a CA poster basically stating “Save the World from runaway climate change and give us money so that we can go to Copenhagen to save it on your behalf”. Since then, when the envelope arrives, I put a little note in it stating something like “Stop supporting the nonsense that is MMGW/climate change and I may start giving again”. CA are as lefty as the Green Party/Greenpeace/WWF/RSPB etc etc. Not a chance will any of them get a penny from me.

      • Pubcrawler

        And Oxfam.

        • Watchman

          And Tearfund

    • Uncle Brian

      Here’s my guess, Carl. Where do I go to collect my prize?

      “In the entire Arab world, stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Gibraltar, the only Arabs living under a decent democratic government that treats them like human beings and respects their rights as citizens are the Arab Israelis.”

      • carl jacobs

        Fail.

        • Uncle Brian

          I’m perplexed, Carl. Flummoxed, baffled, and nonplussed. How can there possibly be any other answer?

    • IanCad

      Thanks Carl.
      I did read the “Policy” tab.
      Don’t give them money.

  • DenisV

    Yes that carbon is pretty nasty stuff! After all, since the start of the industrial revolution when we started using fossil fuels, the average life expectancy has doubled, the global population has increased 8-fold, and incomes have increased 11-fold. (Google “Humanity Unbound – How fossil fuels saved humanity from nature” and download the article.) And the countries that use the most carbon today are also the most well off. Surely it is “just” to protect the poor from such evil effects.

    And no doubt the climate is changing in a catastrophic way. That’s obvious from the fact that global temperatures have remained constant for the past 18 years, most of the recent warming happened before 1940 when we started using fossil fuels in abundance, and the climate today is similar to how it was 1000 and 2000 years ago.

    I’m reminded of the words of Isaiah 8:12 – “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it.”

  • Terry

    This is unbelievably stupid. Man is not changing the climate in any serious way. If he was, it would be right and necessary to do stuff like banning dangerous activity – forget tax – but as he is not, the author should not claim Christian authority for her position.

  • Uncle Brian

    Joe Ware

    Are the ice caps melting? Is the sea level rising? If so, is it rising uniformly all over the world – Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Oceans – and if not, why not? Can we see some statistics, please?

  • Doctor Crackles

    The above piece is the latest in a line of ‘on message’ items from Gillan. He seems to specialise in gleefully presenting the agenda of the CofE in the most glowing and worthy manner. I’d forgive this, even if he does come accross as the eager school prefect. What I really find insulting is that he never defends the stuff he writes by engaging with his readers. This makes me think that he is just a willing mouthpiece without a strong opinion of his own. This makes me wonder further what His Grace’s reasoning is with this constant stream of favourable pieces parroting the CofE party line? Did His Grace get flak for being too confrontational on the old site?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      You need to remember that the CofE is courting popularity in the same way that political parties do. That means:

      (1) Be “on-message”. In other words, keep repeating what is already popular culture because repeating something familiar makes people feel cosily reassured. The fact that it may have little or no truth in it is irrelevant

      (2) Don’t allow questions. That only upsets people and makes it harder to impose the orthodoxy. The same was true over SSM, which theCofE only had limited debate over, and the country at large had no debate at all. Just present it as “it’s always been like this. How silly of us to think otherwise”
      Now, I suggest you get back infront of the telescreen before Big Brother notices you have been questioning him.

      • Doctor Crackles

        Gillan doesn’t respond to questions because he has to get his answered checked out by his masters.

        I am beyond help as far as BB is concerned. Once you see through the charade you can’t ‘unsee’ it if you know what I mean.

        • Uncle Brian

          Gillan does respond to questions quite often, on some threads, anyway. But this one is a guest post by Joe Ware, who is apparently a salaried employee of Christian Aid.

        • Inspector General

          You noticed that to, Crackles. Good fellow…

  • magnolia

    I also feel very annoyed by the video. Have they no awareness nor sensitivity to the form of the sonnet to chop it up in this way, and garble the flow and the meaning? The lines are spoken as entire gobbets of meaning, lost within the context of the whole, and the effect is a disaster that would, I feel, intensely irritate Shakespeare.

    After which a love poem, for such it is, is followed by meaningless guff about eminently disprovable climate change, presented as a proven fact without unexplained emotiveness.

    What next, “My love is like a red red rose…” followed by pictures of roses as if they were all to fade.

    In any case it was supposed to be the Winter days that were imperiled, not the Summer days, but I suppose logic has been thrown to the emoting winds.

  • The Explorer

    I suppose if one’s talking about things warming up, it’s useful to enlist someone with the surname ‘Fry’.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Very good! It’s fun to stir things up a bit, but I don’t like being spoon-fed his nonsense

      • Uncle Brian

        Some people will swallow anything.

        • bluedog

          Uncle Brian, tell us about the drought in Brazil. It would be interesting to get your view. One also reads that the Western US is heading in to a super drought, or at least a drought more serious than anything previously seen during European settlement.

          • Uncle Brian

            It’s a localised drought affecting mainly the city of São Paulo. In a few words, the São Paulo area has cold, dry winters (about May to August) and warm, rainy summers (about November to March). In the last few months two things went wrong: the rain was late, and when at last it started falling, it fell in the wrong place. The rivers to the north of the city that feed a large part of the water supply didn’t get enough rain and the reservoirs at one point were down to 6 percent or less of their capacity. There have been days when the streets have been flooded, with the cars and buses up to their axles in water in low-lying parts of the city, but still no water in the taps, because that comes from the reservoirs many miles away. Things have improved a bit in February, however.

  • James60498 .

    Climate Change. Isn’t that what they used to call Global Warming? I wondered what happened to that!

    • William Lewis

      It ran into an inconvenient truth?

      • avi barzel

        Hahahaha!

  • Inspector General

    Sod climate change. What will be will be. The Inspector has been exposed to so much guff on this subject over the years that he is surprised large areas of the world are no uninhabitable, but as we see, that is not the case…
    We will survive, but if it threatens the third world population explosion, damn well good news, what!

  • Inspector General

    Got caught in a hailstorm today. That’s what you find in February. Always have done. That’s your climate change for you. If you think the Inspector is going to turn his heating off so that some Johnny Africans can continue to have 8 children just in case their testes heat up to such a degree that they can no longer produce sperm, you’ve got another thing coming…

    {Snort!}

    • Politically__Incorrect

      So Inspector, no point the Green candicate coming to your house to canvas your vote?

      • Inspector General

        {Continues cleaning elephant gun}

        • carl jacobs

          Inspector

          Isn’t an elephant gun a little much for a Green Party Candidate? Perhaps a rolled-up newspaper would be more appropriate.

          • Inspector General

            Carl, my dear fellow. The Green party makes it perfectly clear in their manifesto that they will ban intensive animal husbandry from day one. So called battery farming, as they call it. The High Street will empty of meat in approximately 5 hours, and it won’t be seen there again. Possession of meat will NOT be a crime henceforth, but you try getting your hands on the stuff.

            They intend to starve the Inspector to death, no less…

            Elephant gun’s too good for them….

          • Inspector General

            Damn sophisticated advertising on this site these days. Just been invited to watch a clip of film showing how a William and co. shotgun is made…

    • The Explorer

      Probably initiated by D T North.

      • DanJ0

        If you’re talking about the hailstorm in Gloucester then I think that might have been me. I looked at a shirtless picture of Ray Quinn which popped up in my Facebook feed. Coincidentally, he split with his wife yesterday too so someone somewhere had some bad weather coming. I bet people in Christchurch, New Zealand are dreading the Olympics in 2016 as images of gay diver Tom Daley in his speedos will be beamed across the planet. Another earthquake is almost inevitable there as god punishes people for allowing others to admire his bronzed abs. That said, it’s not too late for them to cancel their gay pride parade this year so that god may look for somewhere else to chastise instead.

        • Inspector General

          Still damn chilly today. Keep on seeing meaningless guff about 9 of the 10 hottest years ever occurring have happened this century. Not round here it hasn’t. Perhaps thermometer used is stuck up someone’s behind in Timbuktu…

        • The Explorer

          There was an imam who said the 2004 tsunami was caused by Allah’s displeasure with western sex tourists.
          Divine displeasure, however, is a bigger issue than the one I was citing, which refers simply to D T North’s displeasure with the Inspector.
          For confused other readers, the D T North context relates to a query of mine to the Inspector. I asked if the Inspector had encountered Bee El Zee Bub (an intermittent visitor to this blog) in his current missionary endeavours. The Inspector has, but the gentleman in question is now known as D T North. He also takes vigorous exception to the Inspector’s said endeavours.

        • Inspector General

          While you’re there DanJ0, some news for you. You might want to read up on it, before conventional Islam car bombs the place to rubble…
          ————————-
          Tweety Bird Inspector General • 13 hours ago

          Toronto’s El-Tawhid Juma Circle is the one I know about. This is one I found on Google. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/

          • DanJ0

            I’m missing the relevance, and some of the link. However, I googled and saw this:

            “When people come in here, some with short-shorts on or tank tops, our attitude is we want people to pray. There’s one person who wears a thong you can see when she bends over. Instead of telling her to dress differently, we told people who are uncomfortable not to pray behind her.”

            which I quite liked.

          • DanJ0

            If we’re going a bit off piste then did you see the Big Questions this morning, Inspector? Towards the end, they had some bloke on who has seen Satan in the flesh. No, it wasn’t on Canal Street in Manchester wearing gold hot pants either. He means the Christian devil. Apparently he’s all black with red eyes, like in the films. I love that programme. 🙂

          • Inspector General

            Satan also does a ‘burning bush’ party piece You’ll like that when you get to see it after judgment day…

          • DanJ0

            We’ll probably both get to see it, non-Christians that we are.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, bearing false witness too. That also goes in the book

          • The Explorer

            If ‘BQ’ wants to ridicule belief in the Devil out of existence (which I take to be its intention), then it could not have done better in its choice of candidate for defending the Devil’s reality.
            If Satan looks like he does in the films, then it could be that Hollywood directors have inside information. Given the individual making the assertion, however, I fear a more mundane explanation.

          • DanJ0

            I take it you saw it then? The rest of the audience were surprisingly polite. Just a few smirks and raised eyebrows really, though I thought for a minute that the woman behind him was going to lose it on camera. I don’t really know what to make of the programme’s schtick. They always have oddball Muslim and Christian guests but the Jewish guests are mostly normal.

          • The Explorer

            I watch it most weeks; although not always to the end. I think there probably is an agenda to present both Christianity and Islam as ridiculous, and appropriate crackpots from both are carefully selected. Once in a while somebody sane from both faiths slips through the net when the vetting process hasn’t been rigorous enough.

          • avi barzel

            That’s cause the “Jewish” guests are rarely Jewish.

          • DanJ0

            They’re normally rabbis. Or they describe themselves as such anyway. I’ve never seen someone with ringlets though.

          • avi barzel

            I was kidding…partially. “Ringlets,” interesting and apt description. Some actually do curl them somehow, otherwise they hang pretty loose and limp. You won’t see many rabbis with ringlets (typ. sidelocks or peyot) on tv programmes, though. Most would be ultra-Orthodox and of the Hassidic sects, and they only address their communities, usually in person, as they and their adherents don’t have tvs or computers.

          • The Explorer

            Are they praying with their eyes open?

          • avi barzel

            Bwahahahahaha!

          • DanJ0

            At least one eye, probably.

          • Inspector, dear fellow, when assuming the missionary position on PN, stay protected and practice safe use of links at all times, i.e. don’t touch them.

            One notes a certain individual is full of hatred for you; and Jack means hatred. Links with embedded malicious software can be used to access your computer and establish your IPS address and identity. Do take care.

          • CliveM

            Inspector

            During the recent hiatus and concerned for your well being I had a look on Pink News. I was surprised. Your comments on the Carey thread were reasonable and measured.

            If they get upset by that, there is no hope for them !

          • Inspector General

            Clive, dear soul, one is well and truly blocked. But you’re not. Would like a parting shot, so would you kindly copy the below and paste it on a very recent topic, Tatchell’s glorious defeat in Bermondsey, 1983. There’s a pint in it for you…
            ——————————-
            Mr Tatchell. You are quite something else, sir. I find the idea that the reason for your spectacular defeat in Bermondsey being anything other than the good people thereof not wishing a known LGB activist and troublemaker using their parliamentary seat as a spring board for the aforementioned nefarious purposes to be quite ludicrous. To wit, you were quite unacceptable to them without any dirty tricks.
            Welcome to the real world, dirty tricks and all…
            (From the Inspector General’s office)
            Message ends
            ——————————-

          • CliveM

            Anyone’s for a pint!

          • Inspector General

            Absolutely damn brilliant, Clive !!!
            It will be there all night. The buggers having gone home…

          • CliveM

            I just hope that my wife never gets to hear that I’ve been posting on Pink News!

          • CliveM

            I seem to have upset someone called YurAgob you can guess the rest!

      • Inspector General

        Explorer, warm news regarding the nation’s health service. You will be reassured. (With our host’s permission if he will…)
        ——————————————————————-
        Inspector General lord thorpe • 2 minutes ago

        North is a skilled manipulator and experienced liar. He was masquerading as a Consultant Cardiographer last year. I also suspect he is grieving for an imaginary niece who did not commit suicide.

        He is a bad lot, and he’s taking the rest of you in. Be aware of this ruthless individual who threatens good types with persecution by the police…

        • The Explorer

          Much relieved by the NHS news: I have a review visit to my cardiologist next month.
          Confused, however, by lord thorpe. Is this your new title, and does it have any connection with Lord Charles?

          • Inspector General

            Certainly not. Was answering some queer fellow over there. As with the rest, make sure you keep him well away from young boys…

          • The Explorer

            Yes, I see now. Hence our host’s permission. My medication is such that it still makes me light headed at times. Modifying it accordingly is part of the reason for next month’s visit.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,
    I can’t understand your motive for allowing this left wing unsubstantiated tripe on your esteemed Blog. She writes;
    The dangers of climate change have been warned by scientists for years

    There have been many many scientists who have claimed that global warming was not true but there message has been muted by the media for not fitting in with their left wing agenda. Hence their change from Global Warming to Climate Change.
    God created the universe and all that is therein. He is also in control of the environment according to the scriptures. We can do nothing to upset his plans for this world and it is presumptuous to think that mankind can do anything to change the direction we are going.
    I’m not saying that we can be reckless with how we treat the environment but this dear lady is disillusioned as to what we puny people can achieve. The best we can do is recognise Jesus as as our Savior and follow him.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Dear Gillan,
    We know you lean a little to the left and are strong on the CofE but that is not bad, but you might try turning round and seeing that there is another world behind you.
    I don’t think that all the commentators below can be wrong.
    Blessings.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Nothing to do with the article, but can I just point out Gillan looks very male to me. I think we should address him by his correct gender.

    • Pubcrawler

      And note that it’s a guest post by some cove named Joe Ware, too.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Thanks. I stand corrected

        • Pubcrawler

          Nothing in what you wrote needs correcting. I was thinking of others.

  • IanCad

    This is unusual; we all agree!
    Follow the money!!

    • Uncle Brian

      I wasn’t expecting to see you here today, Ian. Already after sunset in your time zone, I suppose.

      • IanCad

        That’s right UB. About 5:45pm here.The days are getting longer. Only four more months and they’ll start to get shorter again.

        • Uncle Brian

          Here we’re making the most of our last few hours of summer time. Tonight’s the night we put the clocks back.

  • It’s not global warming or climate change as we think we know it to be
    that we’ve got to worry about, there certainly WILL be climate change
    if the Yanks get their way. God only knows what the meddlesome
    bastards are brewing up now!

    I think this is what they really mean by AGW

    “Professor Alan Robock stated that three years ago, two men claiming to be from
    the CIA had called him to ask whether experts would be able to tell
    if hostile forces had begun manipulating the US’s weather, though
    he suspected the purpose of the call was to find out if American
    forces could meddle with other countries’ climates instead.”

    “Professor Robock, who has investigated the potential risks and benefits of
    using stratospheric particles to simulate the climate-changing
    effects of volcanic eruptions, said he felt “scared” when the
    approach was made.”

    “I’d
    learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that haven’t
    followed the rules and I thought that wasn’t how I wanted my tax
    money spent. I think this research has to be in the open and
    international so there isn’t any question of it being used for
    hostile purposes.”

    ***

    Professor Robock’s concerns come as a major report on geo-engineering is to
    be published this week by the US National Academy of Sciences. Among
    the report’s list of sponsors is the “US intelligence community”,
    which includes Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, and the US Department of Energy.

    The
    professor alleges that the CIA told a colleague of his that it wanted
    to fund the report, but claimed that it did not want this fact to be
    too obvious – he added that the CIA is “a major funder” of the
    report which “makes me really worried about who is going to be in
    control”.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-looking-into-weather-modification-as-a-form-of-warfare/5432125

  • Anton

    Over this issue the science outranks the politics. And in science the data outrank the theory. And the world has not got warmer for some 15 years now even though China and India continue to industrialise and raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Even the warming zealots speak of a pause, while the satellite data – which are more reliable than the terrestrial data because they poll the entire globe in one – are even clearer.

    What’s going on? In a dry atmosphere the warming effect of a given amount of carbon dioxide is not hard to calculate. It was first done by Arrhenius about a century ago. In a moist atmosphere like the earth’s,, however, the calculation is so difficult that the best computer models still involve – frankly – guesswork. It is far from clear whether water vapour enhances or mitigates the warming effect of carbon dioxide, but the models used by the IPCC – which is run by an Indian railway economist – insist that it amplifies it by a factor of 3. That is why the IPCC cries thermageddon. Notice how it shifted from “global warming” to “climate change” and then assumes that all climate change is manmade. This is nonsense: there have been plenty of cycles in the earth’s climate in the centuries and millennia before the Industrial Revolution set carbon dioxide levels on the rise.

    I am not suggesting that the majority of climate physicists are corrupt. There are many subtle selection mechanisms operating in the sociology of science capable of explaining why they mostly back the wrong horse. But I assure you as a physicist that there is no consensus, and it is a lie that there is. Also there is clearly some improper manipulation of terrestrial data that exaggerates the warming; google “Paraguay temperature record scam” for example.

    We do need to curb our carbon usage over the long term, if only because fossil fuels will eventually run out and it is better not to be in hock to Islamic regimes. But there is no cause for panic and I suggest that we frack away while nuclear fusion power (not the same as nuclear fission) is developed, and the search for a decent way of storing energy so as to buffer between natural supply from solar, tidal etc, and human demand. (Never wind turbines – they produce tiny amounts of energy at huge expense and wreck the landscape. They are popular only with those who wish to harvest the subsidies they come with – which are raising the cost of electricity and causing the poor to go cold in winter.)

    As for the politics, the Green movement is a direct and virulent descendant of the 19th century Romantic movement that whined about the Industrial Revolution – whose fruits permit even the poor today in our culture to have a higher material standard of living than mediaeval kings. Greens wish to return us to a pastoral idyll that never existed. Life working the land was dreadfully harsh – so harsh that people freely quit it to work in those grim factories. And the Third World piles in seeing the chance of easy money; an international carbon tax would merely transfer wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. The co-chairman of one of the IPCC’s working groups, Ottmar Edenhofer, stated in a candid interview in the Neue Zurcher Zeitung newspaper in 2010 that: “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    • bluedog

      An excellent post but this comment is questionable, ‘We do need to curb our carbon usage over the long term, if only because fossil fuels will eventually run out’. There seems very little prospect of coal running out. It’s everywhere, including Antarctica.

    • William Lewis

      Very good, comprehensive comment, Anton.

      Can we do a straight swap? Your comment for the original post?

  • bluedog

    For all the old fogeyish harrumphing that has greeted this post (the central proposition of which seems absurd) it is surely reckless to dismiss the possibility of manmade climate change. Lawyer Graham Wood says, ‘I am still waiting to hear the evidence for any correlation’, which seems to ignore the symmetry between the rise in atmospheric C02 and the rise in coal consumption as human society has become more energy intensive.

    • Phil R

      You cannot simply dismiss peoples memories either.

      I know a guy in his fifties who grew up as a boy in Holland.

      He claims when he was a boy that a regular Sunday outing was to skate along the canals have some food from the many stalls and skate home again.

      This year he said he has hardly had to scrape his car and the canal he used to skate along has not frozen for many years.

      As a result the skate hire booths that he said were so common have all gone.

      • avi barzel

        “His car” (and a million or so of other cars) is the clue. The next one is the growth of cities. It’s called “urban heat island effect.”

  • Linus

    Say what?

    What in the heck is “climate justice”?

    It’s this kind of glib jargon that gets backs up and sets ordinary people firmly against the green lobby. When people wearing recycled hemp clothing and those annoying Peruvian bobble hats, who look as though they haven’t seen soap and water (organic olive oil based soap and tepid solar heated water, of course) for a month or more start to preach about the virtues of recycling and wind turbines, I start to get VERY irritated.

    Have they ever done an energy analysis of their supposed “green” lifestyle to see exactly how pointless it all is? Do they realize that clean green wind turbines and solar panels never succeed in generating enough clean green electricity to offset the carbon emitted during their manufacturing process? Do they understand that all these wonderful electric cars rely on batteries that last a maximum of 5 years and create a long term chemical pollutant problem that makes nuclear waste pale in comparison?

    Hypocritical luvvies like Stephen Fry who pontificate about energy hungry Western lifestyles while they jet around the globe making films about how jetting around the globe is destroying our climate are the worst offenders of all.

    Yes, our activities are changing the climate. We have to deal with that, but as things stand we have no chance because the supposed solutions are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    There’s nothing you or I can do about climate change. We just have to bear the consequences, and even then we don’t really know what those consequences will be. If some of the catastrophe scenarios turn out to be true, we’ll all pay the price of our profligacy. And given that few ecologically virtuous African peasants would turn down the opportunity to live profligate Western lifestyles if they could, perhaps we all deserve to pay that price.

    That’s the reality of “climate justice”. Is anyone who ever dreamed of owning a car or an iPhone innocent and blameless?

    • carl jacobs

      Excellent point about the disposability of batteries.

      • Yes, self interest in the use of batteries should always come second to considerations about disposability and environmental impact. Should this be factored in to the unit cost in some way?

        • carl jacobs

          Actually, Jack. Preparing for end-of-product-life issues like disposability is a part of the System Engineering process. When I said “improved battery technology” I implicitly assumed the subject of disposability.

          Linus’ point was that environmentalists who complain about combustion are not paying attention to the parallel problem of battery disposal. That’s because this isn’t about the environment. It’s about behavior change.

          California requires a great deal of recycling. Unfortunately, there is no market for much of the re-cycled material. It therefore ends up in landfill. So private citizens are paying a lot of money in taxes and wasting a lot of personal time to re-cycle trash that has no economic utility. Why? Because the gov’t nabobs think it is a good behavioral change.

          • So why not let the market address the problem? Have consumers return batteries to manufacturers and ‘encourage’ them to solve the disposability issue. The cost of batteries will rise until they do and, as a consequence, demand will drop. That’s the market.

          • avi barzel

            Have the consumers return the batteries…

            Well, that’d be government regulations, not the market, solving the problem.

          • Government regulations cover the market already.

          • avi barzel

            But it’s still a regulatory solution, not a free enterprise (read voluntary) process.

          • Uncle Brian

            And the batteries will still have to be disposed of, just by somebody else, not the consumer.

          • avi barzel

            True, but it’s all about the feel good factor and what you can’t see….

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Neither customers nor manufacturers like to deal with (i.e.pay for) problems of disposability. The market correctly assigns a value of zero to disposed products, and would treat them accordingly. When Southern California first started experiencing problems with smog, the local gov’ts reacted by regulating the output of smoke stacks. Industry objected. Why? Because waste gas has no value. To treat it does not increase the value of the business. The market says “Get rid of waste gas as cheaply and expeditiously as possible.” Pollution may have a public cost but the market dictates that the cost be shifted somewhere else. In the case of waste gas, the problem gets shifted onto the public domain through the common medium of air.

            Because there is a public cost and no market incentive to address the cost, the public acts through its elected bodies to force industry to address the problem. It regulates waste gas output, and applies the rules across the board so that no single firm has a competitive advantage. This drives up cost for the sake of the public good. If there are other places that are willing to endure the public cost of pollution for the sake of development, then you might lose those industries. There is a necessary place for Gov’t regulation of the economy, but it comes at a price. Regulators have to trade off the public cost with the economic cost. You can of course create clean air by driving all of your industry out the door. But how will people live in your pristine environment?

            This is the very root of your problem. You can regulate the industry within your jurisdiction and make them clean up the smoke. But you can’t keep them in business by regulation. You can’t prevent a competitor from opening a factory in a low-cost location. You can’t prevent customers from preferring their low-cost option from your high-cost option. Honestly, you can’t even judge their willingness to accept the high cost of pollution for the sake of economic development. What is their alternative? Labor unions for example are not seeking to export western labor standards around the world to protect foreign workers. They are doing it to destroy their competitive wage advantage. The idea is not to improve worker conditions in SE Asia. The idea is to keep work at home. And what then happens to the workers in SE Asia? Do they go back to subsistence agriculture? How much pollution is worth escaping that reality?

          • Then it’s a global issue requiring a global response. At least it becomes identified as a problem. The unfettered ‘market’ will pay the least wage it can get away with to maximise profit. Because the problem is difficult and complex, doesn’t mean attempts shouldn’t be made to mitigate it.
            For example, what gets to Jack is the hullaballoo some Christians make about Halal meat – “Oooh, we might be eating food sacrificed to a false god, this will not do”, etc. And yet the very same people fail to ask what god they’re worshipping when they buy that cheap, mass produced shirt made by exploited children in Asia. Whatever the motive of the trades unions, they are correct in attempting to address working conditions in underdeveloped countries.

          • avi barzel

            Children exploited in factories is a step up from children sold in slave markets, used as sex objects or dying in gutters. I’m all for ending exploitation, but it’s a problem that can only resolve itself through rising standards which in this case only happen through increased productivity, competitive pricing and free markets. That’s why the best thing we can do for the Third World is to open our doors to their products. Our mafia-led unions don’t give a shit about child labour. They want to slack off, charge an arm and a leg for their “socially just” and “sustainable” garbage and secure fantastic “living wages” with great benefits. In imagined American accent Carl is surely blessed with: Can’t blame ’em for tryin’….but if I don’t have to, I ain’t byin’.

          • It was those same unions, mainly Irish Catholics, who secured descent wages at the turn of the last century for American workers – probably in Canada too. And Jack doesn’t buy this “wealth will trickle down” claim of the free market pundits. The market has no social conscience and will always pay the lowest it can for labour and provide the lowest health and safety standards the law allows.

          • avi barzel

            What secured decent wages are not unions, which can be easily ignored or suppressed (and were) but increasing demand and competition for skilled labour. In such an environment, the union became the manufacturer’s behind-the-scenes boss-man by controlling the labour force and suppressing wages. Now that labour in manufacturing and service industries is in low demand, unions are dead and gone…except in the “public sector” (government and friends), of course.

            You must not believe all the syndicalist agitprop for the workers issued by the Great Party, Zhak, if you want to make it to the Politbureau, da?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Then it’s a global issue requiring a global response.

            There is no global jurisdiction. There is no way to compel a response. You have a vision that is unrealizable. Don’t expect to harangue people into following your vision. You can’t just export western standards into a country and expect them to work. There is a whole legal infrastructure that must exist to support them.

            And yet the very same people fail to ask what god they’re worshipping when they buy that cheap, mass produced shirt made by exploited children in Asia.

            As opposed to what, Jack? You don’t buy the shirt. What happens. The factory is not going to adopt western standards because you won’t buy the shirt. Those standards must grow indigenously. If it can’t make money, it shuts down. Then what happens to those exploited child workers? Do they go to school? Do they join a trade union and earn a living wage? What happens next? You seem to think you can swoop into a country that does not possess the rule of law and establish things dependent upon the rule of law. If you want good standards, there must be development. You can’t just wish it into existence by planting magic beans.

            Whatever the motive of the trades unions, they are correct in attempting to address working conditions in underdeveloped countries.

            Unions aren’t trying to address working conditions in underdeveloped countries. They are trying to destroy the possibility of work in underdeveloped countries. The “working conditions” are a cost of doing business. Unions are trying to price underdeveloped nations out of the market. How is this not relevant?

          • “There is no global jurisdiction.”

            There is the Divine jurisdiction that judges us and our treatment of others, direct and indirect.

            “There is no way to compel a response.”

            Where has Jack mentioned or suggested compulsion? Christianity is a worldwide faith.

            “The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as:

            – Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%)”
            (Wiki)

            Quite a sizable group with considerable economic and moral clout.

            “You don’t buy the shirt. What happens.”

            The producers may increase wages and improve conditions either because it is the right thing to do or because the market demands it.

            Bite size chunks and small steps, directed by a moral ethic and not just blind market forces. And the development of third world economies requires a similar open-handed, Christian approach.

    • This made Jack chuckle so he up voted it, Linus.

      It is a tad harsh though to classify all Greens as: ” … wearing recycled hemp clothing and those annoying Peruvian bobble hats, who look as though they haven’t seen soap and water (organic olive oil based soap and tepid solar heated water, of course) for a month.”

      Jack quite likes the Peruvian hats – very colourful and they do keep one’s ears warm up here in cold Scotland. Besides, the authentic ones come with a ‘Fair Trade’ guarantee.

      • The Explorer

        Clever chap, Linus.

        • “And to man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding’ “
          (Job 28:28)

    • William Lewis

      “What in the heck is “climate justice”?”

      I think it means planting a polar bear every time you empty the ice tray.

      • Bad …….. but funny.

        • William Lewis

          Not so bad and suitably absurd, I think. A phrase like “Climate justice” adds considerably more heat than light and deserves to be shot down, as Linus has done, particularly given the absence of any cogent, coherent and convincing information as to what it actually means and how it is to be administered.

      • avi barzel

        Pfft! Happenned when social justice hooked up to climate change at a rave in Guatemala, missed the abortion appointment because the calendar app on the iPhone failed and whelped out climate justice. I think it’s transgender or two-spirited.

        • William Lewis

          I shall look forward to being told to “check your footprint” instead of “check your privilege” in future then Avi.

    • educynic

      My dear Linus,

      I agree with every word. I add only what I had to explain to a colleague the other day. Electric cars not only have the pollution of their batteries, they are charged from the electric grid, the majority of whose electricity comes from burning fossil fuels.

  • avi barzel

    … climate change is, at its core, an issue of injustice. Those that are least responsible for creating the problem, are the ones who are suffering the most. Livelihoods are being destroyed, people are forced to leave their homes and extreme weather events make widows and orphans. Many of these people are our brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. As a global network not operating on short term election cycles or profit margins, Christians and the Church are in a
    unique positon to speak prophetically for those without a voice.

    What utter piffle. This guest post is an insult on our intelligence, Gillan.

    First of all, what’s this new-fangled “climate change” or “climate disruption” business? What ever happened to anthropogenic global warming? What, pray do tell, is the mechanism of manmade CO2 supposedly
    affecting climate, if not through the original claim of supposed forcing of
    warmer temperatures? And if the theory hasn’t changed, why change the name? Who defines this “climate change”? To date, there is no evidence that the
    climate is not behaving normatively. In spite of significant increase in man-made CO2 emissions, global temperatures have flat-lined for the last 18 years (incongruously, dubbed as “the pause” by the warmists). What happened to the scary predictions of snow-free winters, rising oceans, drowning polar bears and South Seas islanders, and massive “climate refugee” disasters? Oops, never mind all that, we now have “extreme weather”…which, unlike temperature and CO2 emissions data, is much, much harder to argue against. In fact, with useful world weather records being so recent any and all weather and climate events can be made to mean anything. Whew!

    Then, there is the blatantly obvious. Historically, all life-positive, civilization-flourishing activity occurs during warm periods. Simples. Warm: healthy flora and fauna, emergence of agriculture, expansion of trade, formation of civilizations and a
    general increase in standards of living and human longevity. Cold: catastrophic
    extinctions, spread of diseases, famine, shortened life-spans, increase in
    warfare and violence, reversion to barbarism. No pseudo-science, not
    Lysenkoism, racialism or eugenics, have managed to pull such a grand scam
    against science and common sense as the recently created “climate scientists.”

    The elephant in the room is that the science behind the claim of this government sponsored and promoted regulatory and tax-grab is entirely absent. The East Anglia U shenanigans, the suppression of research, “loss” of historic temperature records and “adjustments” of existing ones, persecution of dissenting scientist and an attempt to manufacture a non-existent scientific consensus have flopped. So, it’s back to arm-twisting and politicking by the UN-IPCC and collaborating governments, institutions and government funded “non-governmental” organizations. But wait, there’s more! Not to be outdone, the usual quacks…environmental activists and vested industries…have been joined by the leftist “faith leaders” and their organizations. When science fails, when politics falters, when activism is exposed, olde tyme religion can lend a hand. And, all of them together will change reality.

    So, to quote someone undeservedly famous, let me make this perfectly clear: The attempt to regulate and tax CO2 emissions has no scientifically empirical or rational basis. It is history’s largest attempt to defraud the largest number of people and to rob them of the largest ever sum of money. But wait again, there is still more. Raising the cost of energy by suppressing carbon-based sources and supporting weak and insufficient sectors and crony-capitalists in the grossly inadequate, if not currently failing “alternate” energy fields will destroy national economies and lives. Raising the price of energy in the industrialized world means poor nutrition, deaths from cold or over-heating, collapse of private enterprise and reduced mobility. Forcing useless windmills and solar panels to power a few energy-efficient light bulbs in mud huts consigns generations to mud huts. Preventing billions in Africa and elsewhere from accessing massive coal deposits from under their feet and using clean coal technologies is to keep them in misery for generations.

    Humanitarians, people of all religions and “faith leaders” need to think long and hard, rationally and wit reference to facts, rather than engaging in transparent propaganda stunts like this “Show the Love” farce. By playing along with such
    scams, they will be collectively responsible for the deaths and misery of
    billions and might as well change their logo from a cutsey heart to a Duerer
    etching of the Riders of the Apocalypse.

    • carl jacobs

      So, Avi.

      I’m not sure I am clear on you opinion about this subject. Perhaps you could clarify.

      might as well change their logo from a cutsey heart to a Duerer etching of the Riders of the Apocalypse.

      I was thinking about that yesterday. A vision of de-industrialization (which seems to be at the heart of all this) would necessitate the death of literally billions of (other) people. If you asked them in quiet moments when they thought only the committed were listening, I suspect you would discover that they consider such an outcome a rather good thing.

      • avi barzel

        Yes, I know what you mean, my wife says that I waffle too much and she can never guess my thoughts.
        As for the outcome, a few in the neo-eugenics and environmental activism sector have actually braved it out and been honest about things. That “faith leaders” would fall for this is astounding. And scary.

        • IanCad

          With all due respect Avi, I believe your wife is a fibber.
          They know, they know.

          • avi barzel

            No, she’s an agent provocateur.

          • The Explorer

            She’s just trying to put him off his guard.

        • magnolia

          Your account is brilliantly accurate. Thanks. You are one of those with the heart for humanity, not these judgemental scaremongers.

          There is the promise of God not to flood the earth, but they do not hear it. The true imagery of the rainbow supports us.

          • avi barzel

            Thanks! There many here, though, who have done a better job.

      • magnolia

        Eugenics and Malthusianism are definitely in the mix. In terms of Venn diagrams, there is a large intersect, though not of course a total one.

  • Inspector General

    Inspired by the magnificent Avi’s appearance, one has last points to make.

    We are all carbon offenders {hangs head low}. It’s an ominous day when humanity
    is described as nothing more than offenders.

    Did you know that the most carbon expensive thing going is air flight. But, get this, rather than wind air flight down, it’s on a continuing expansion curve. Also, it is apparently exempt from naughty carbon activity, and do you know WHY…

    Well, the Inspector does. It allows the conspiracy that is the scientific profession to jet around the world attending global warming conferences without guilt.

    Sirs. I tell you this. You are being played for fools, and none so more than the gentleman who authored this dismal mawkish essay for Cranmer.

    • avi barzel

      It is not often that I’m called “magnificent,” Inspector. But hey, you’re the resident inspector, so I’ll just have to go along with it.
      You know, you just might have presented a viable hypothesis for this climate smagaggle. Posh junkets for obedient puppies to faddy, cool and hip world spots. Certainly way more empirical data for that than “climate change.” What!

      • Inspector General

        Don’t forget the generous expense account Avi. You can’t have a ‘crisis’ without one of those for the lucky recipients…

        • avi barzel

          Of course, the problem is that the junkets are just the little cherry on top of the big, fat cake. The reward for all the “hard work.” The big, fat cake is the billions to universities, the thousands of department chairs, baksheesh to government and municipal departments, aid agencies, the NGOs, the “loans” and grants to crony capitalists and “green” energy start-ups. It’s a good investment; for a few billion scattered hither and yon now, you can bilk the entire world of trillions perhaps indefinitely. You and I are in the wrong business, on the wrong side!

    • carl jacobs

      magnificent

      (cough) Salted Herring (cough cough) Canadian (cough)

    • Stephen Raftery

      Maybe we should just put all those Climate Change conferences in somewhere really nice. How about Scunthorpe. Or Lulsgate Bottom (at a pinch)

      • Inspector General

        Good idea. The Ice Hotel in Sweden comes to mind. Shouldn’t be possible to build something like that these days with all this CO2 floating everywhere, but there you go…

  • CliveM

    One of the surest methods of combating global CO2 emissions would be to target, eliminate and reverse population growth.

    Already many in the scientific and green community refer to humans as parasites. Many already equate morality with low rates of fertility. Some on the fringes are already pushing for radical action this.

    I believe in climate change. It is probably being made worse by human activity. However no one has yet suggested a workable, sustainable method of combating it. We all have family and unless we want to inflict poverty, starvation and early death on them it is probably better we stop wasting time coming up with ludicrous schemes for combating it ( which won’t work) and instead work out how to live with it and exploit some of the benefits that will flow from it.

    • Inspector General

      ” …refer to humans as parasites.”

      You’ve been boning up on the Green manifesto, haven’t you. One trusts you will not be voting for those environmental madcap fascists…

      • CliveM

        Know thine enemy Inspector.

        I’m certainly not intending to impoverish myself.

    • carl jacobs

      Already many in the scientific and green community refer to humans as parasites.

      Then they should lead the way by offing themselves. Have you ever noticed how inconsistent people can be – especially when self-interest is involved?

      “Hey! You over there. Would you die please. You are screwing up my enjoyment of this beach!”

      • CliveM

        One of things I like to do with Greens is to challenge them as to how we are going to feed and employ all the billions of people on this planet.

        Usually were they come unstuck.

        • avi barzel

          Rooftop gardens. Locavores. Calorie reduction. Grubs, bugs pond scum. And, of course, social justice: responsible exit from energy-expensive life through euthanasia!

          • Inspector General

            Excellent!
            “Tonight viewers, we’ll show you how to prepare a nourishing meal from the fauna in your water butt…”

          • CliveM

            Social justice!!

            Pfft. Words, nothing but words, used to disguise lack of a proper, thought out policy.

          • avi barzel

            Well, yes, another gobledeygook neologism just like “climate change.” With plenty of authority, money and threats, you can make it mean anything.

          • CliveM

            Social Justice is a term I particularly dislike. It’s used to give a veneer of respectability to theft :0(

          • avi barzel

            How about “climate justice” then?

          • CliveM

            Same problem, to quote a well known sage and wit “another gobbledygook neologism”!!

          • Stephen Raftery

            Hmmmm, ‘Social justice’. I can’t help thinking I would prefer the plain old vanilla ….. well, justice

          • avi barzel

            Sorry, can’t have that; social justice requires that we suspend plain old vanilla justice for a much greater cause. What cause? Sorry, you wouldn’t understand, you are privileged, clearly White (judging by icecream preference) and we need to hear other’s voices and narratives.

    • avi barzel

      How do you “target, eliminate and reverse population growth” nicely, Clive? What freedoms are you willing to give up and what powers and liberties are you ready to grant and to whom? Besides, it’s the energy consuming, carbon-emitting societies, not the energy/carbon poor ones, which have reduced their population growths!
      And of course no one has suggested a workable method for combatting what, without any evidence and thus by default, is a non-problem. The CO2 reductions are impossible without massive suffering and deaths and cannot be implemented without the creation of an authoritarian international regime. This should tell you something.

      • CliveM

        Avi

        I’m quoting no recommending. For the record I believe that the best way of reducing fertility levels is the widen the benefits of economic development and wealth creation, as there is a link between poverty and high fertility rates.

        Perhaps the opposite of what the Greens recommend.

        • avi barzel

          Good Heavens, I misread your entire post. I think I’ll go no, I’ll go and get some brain food. There’s a jar of pickled herring I’ve been saving for Carl in the fridge….

          • carl jacobs

            It’s not polite to feed cat food to guests.

          • The Explorer

            Tell it to the Inspector.

          • carl jacobs

            Shush! The Inspector doesn’t like people knowing he has a cat. He has an image to protect, you know.

          • CliveM

            We don’t talk about the Inspectors Pussy………….

          • Inspector General

            Now, feeding people to cats. There’s merit in that…

          • CliveM

            Well would help our over population problem!

          • The Explorer

            Unless we ended up with too many cats.

          • CliveM

            You know how Fry and Dawkins give a long list of nasty’s that ‘prove’ God doesn’t exist? Well they should include cats.

          • The Explorer

            Myself, I grew up in a household with two dogs and two cats at any one time. I’m a fan of both species. Give me either ahead of Fry, any day. ( I rather like Dawkins because he does such a good demolition job on Postmodernism.)

          • CliveM

            I’m prejudiced, they give me astma :0(

          • The Explorer

            Nonsense. I’ll bet ‘What’s New, Pussycat?’ is his favourite song.

          • avi barzel

            Right. O, any idea how to make the down-vote thingie work? Just asking.

          • carl jacobs

            Didn’t you know? It’s a violation of the rules on Cranmer’s blog to down-vote my comments. Something about it being “a violation of the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Jack, however, is available for down-voting…

          • Do the down votes work?

            They do work!

          • CliveM

            Pickled Herring is popular in Scotland as well. Always a bit if a treat.

          • CliveM

            Probably my fault and not being clear.

      • sarky

        Two words – bovine flatulence. Cut our reliance on cheap beef, or cow farts will be the death of us.

        • Pubcrawler

          More belching than farting. But apparently feeding cows garlic can halve their methane output.

          http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

          • Uncle Brian

            It’ll keep them safe from vampires, too.

        • avi barzel

          Yes, methane is a greenhouse gas (assuming we fully understand the mechanics a ithatand hiw or if it applies in a dynamic system) with about ten year lifespan in the atmosphere. Think hard about that one next to you let some go on its merry journey around the planet….but don’t get too sentimental. The warmists are not as panicked about it (yet) as there is less of it than CO2 and lasts about half as long.

  • len

    What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new(old) religion……’ Gaia worship’ (well since we are now a pagan nation this can hardly be surprising?)
    The accusation for those who do not bow before mother Earth will be” climate change deniers”
    According to James Lovelock
    ‘The Revenge of Gaia’, Lovelock claims that Gaia is now fully
    awakened, and she is angry. Lovelock writes “Just
    as the human body uses a fever to fight off an infection, Gaia is
    raising Her temperature to expel a harmful parasite – humans.
    Unless humans renounce their destructive ways and rejoin the diverse
    community of living beings in Gaia’s loving embrace then Gaia
    will be forced to act in order to secure Her supreme reign”.

    The new (old) Age is here…..

    • William Lewis

      An entertaining yarn that Lovelock then sold to James Cameron who made the Avatar movie. Allegedly.

      Unfortunately, lovelock is another scientist who has blended his science with his ideological faith.

      • Uncle Brian

        “Blended with” or “exchanged for”? Those two sentences that Len quotes in his comment sound like a scrap of dialogue from Futurama.

        • William Lewis

          Indeed, Uncle Brian, but I suppose a man must construct something to put his faith in, if he would deny God.

          • DanJ0

            I suppose a dustbin would be too inappropriate.

          • William Lewis

            Entirely appropriate for some, I’d have thought. Unfortunately, these constructions have a habit of turning up again in some recycled form. Nothing new under the sun, as some wise chap put it way back when.

    • avi barzel

      Yes, there is the neopagan element in this too, len, although most warmists are too shallow to get it. But last I heard, Lovelock chucked the ideology and is a skeptic now.

      • William Lewis

        How interesting, Avi. I hadn’t realised that Lovelock had retracted much of this. There’s still some hope of relief from this madness then.

        • avi barzel

          Lovejoy is a fan of fracking now and has dumped AGW theory. His Gaia hypothesis is still of interest and last I read, one of its specific predictions is currently being tested with a study of sulphur compounds and their ability to transfer heat from oceans to atmosphere.

          In spite of the way it has been popularized and misinterpreted, and its seemingly Pagan name, the hypothesis merely posits that the Earth and its environmental and biological subsystems act to balance the global system and thus emulate sentience or intelligence. I hope I’m explaining all this correctly, and the new fellow with geology backround here might snicker at my attempt, but the point I’m trying to make is that there is nothing mystical or supernatural suggested in the Lovejoy hypothesis, as we see examples of seemingly intelligent system balancing on smaller scale in nature. The problem is with Greenies, flakes, Hollywood and people who don’t undetstand the straight science behind it and read all sorts of nonsense into the hypothesis. It is not a suggestion that our planet is actually a sentient being or a goddess.

          Oddly enough, the Gaia hypothesis may be also supported by the failure of the global warming theory. It appears that some of the Earth’s systems…oceans, landmasses and atmosphere…may act reflexively as a unit, to regulate heat exchange and prevent the nightmare greenhouse scenario the warmists are alarmed about. There is a bit of irony in that!

  • The_Lord_Charles

    Guess who’s back. I was sleeping it off in the wood pile when that idiot Inspector almost threw me on the fire. Am taking over from him at Pink News. Apparently, if he shows up there again, he’s a dead man.
    Toodle Pip !

    • William Lewis

      Brilliant disguise Insp … err … The Lord Charles.

      • CliveM

        Oh dear this can’t end well. Are you sure?

        • William Lewis

          It was surely time the Inspector came in from the pink. He doesn’t like to delegate much but a change in personnel on the ground was long overdue. It sounds like they were on to him.

          • DanJ0

            I’d suggest calling himself Steve Davis next but they’d spot immediately that, unlike Davis, he actually prefers the brown to the pink when he takes a shot.

          • William Lewis

            You’ve got me snookered there, Danj0. I would ask for a clarification but suspect that ignorance might be bliss in this instance. I remember watching Steve Davis on an old black and white, so it was more a case of seven shades of grey when I were a lad. In any case, time moves on, colour is ubiquitous and yet again we see, from the OP, that the green is the new red.

          • CliveM

            Was the reference to Shades of Grey deliberate?

          • William Lewis

            Only a passing, oblique reference to the cultural, ever encompassing obsession with sex, Clive.

        • carl jacobs

          Yes, that’s the Inspector. He has used that avatar before. And who else uses the expression “Toodle pip” around here.

          • CliveM

            Oh ok…….

            You are right of course, who else ?!

          • The Explorer

            Back in the days when SSM was a discussion issue on this blog, we were visited by Bee El Zee Bub: who left an aggressive message. BEZB was not interested in dialogue: my own response to his overture was ignored.
            It would appear from what the Inspector has said on this and recent threads that BEZB has since changed his name, and it is he who takes particular exception to the Inspector’s missionizing activity. I hope the Inspector is supping with an appropriately long spoon.

          • CliveM

            People can be very brave on a blog.

            We will need to pray for the Inspectors continuing good health!

          • The Explorer

            I am already doing so.

    • The Explorer

      Great to see the return of Lord Charles, but if readers from Pinkerton happen to visit this thread and see his post won’t they know he’s another version of the Inspector?

      • carl jacobs

        How many posts would it take for you to recognize the Inspector simply by his content and style?

        • The Explorer

          We know that some from over there do intermittently visit us over here: generally when the thread impinges on their particular priorities. But the Inspector, as you say, does have a certain distinctive panache. I suspect that in whatever guise he presented himself, the sleuthhounds over there would be on his case immediately.

          • And Lord Charles’ very first post: “Vote UKIP and save yourselves…. ” He doesn’t quite get circumspection. This will end in tears.

          • The Explorer

            Lord Charles seems compelled to do missionary work over there, and I dare say there’s no stopping him unless they ban him outright. But I really don’t want to see him ending up in their equivalent of a .cooking pot.

          • He’s doing okay. The only thing he needs to be wary of is STI’s – Social media Transmitted Infections.

          • DanJ0

            I expect the Inspector would secretly quite relish being tied up and danced around by a bunch of bare-chested heathens.

  • The_Lord_Charles

    The Inspector says good night to you fellows. He’s trying to get a bit of shut eye in right now. He hasn’t been sleeping properly since those three muslim girls from east London flew off. Can any of us, one asks…

    • The Explorer

      The Explorer has less of a problem with their flying away (other than concern about innocents at their point of destination) than he has with the prospect of their return. .

  • To see all three professional political class rent seeking politicians sign anything is surely the clearest reason to be suspicious of it. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A26&version=NASB

  • Mike Stallard

    Jesus also said “I am the Way, the Truth and the LIfe.” There have been a lot of cases when you lot of climate people have falsified and damaged the truth. Why?
    The other thing which I loathe is the personal attacks on people. Is that because you have already lost the argument?
    In no way is this an open and closed issue and you know that too.
    Please do not insult the religion to which I am proud to belong and which Stephen Fry has benefited from but now puts second to his sexual needs, with climate change.

  • I don’t think I know enough to be a Climate Change Sceptic. I class myself more as a Climate Change Wonderer.
    I wonder why the Romans could grow vines up by Hadrian’s Wall without any of the developments in viticulture that we have today. I wonder why folk used regularly to skate on the Thames at the end of the 17th Century. I wonder why Greenland is called Greenland. I don’t think they had Saatchi & Saatchi back then. I wonder if the climate doesn’t change all the time.
    .
    I also wonder why the C.C. zealots are never satisfied. 35 years ago, my father used to pose round in a big old Ford Granada doing about 17 miles to the gallon of high- sulphur high-lead petrol. Today, I can get 60 mpg (non-lead, low sulphur) from a car that is only somewhat smaller, and the 100 mpg car is only a few years away. The new gas boilers use 25% less fuel that the old ones; the new led light bulbs use only 10% of the electricity of tungsten ones and almost never need changing; a nice man from the government gave me 10 inches of insulation in my roof to replace the four that I put in myself years ago. Even the new aeroplanes are about 25% more efficient that the older ones. Yet still the C.C. lobby tells us that we’re all doomed. It makes you wonder why we bothered.
    .
    If we built a new coal-fired power station tomorrow, it would be 25-30% more efficient than they old ones which we haven’t replaced because the C.C. loonies won’t let us. Instead we have windmills and solar panels. I wonder why. I never pass six windmills without seeing two of them not working, and shouldn’t we be growing food on our land instead of panels? And what are we going to do next year or the year after when its a freezing cold evening in December and the wind’s not blowing?
    .
    I wonder why anyone would think that Stephen Fry would know any more about Climate Change that I do.
    .
    Just wondering.

    • CliveM

      Very good post.

      In answer to one of your questions, the reason why the CC zealots are never satisfied, is because they want to push us back the Stone Age.

    • Uncle Brian

      Martin, I’ve read that it was a short-lived global cooling, or mini-Ice Age, that
      enabled Londoners to skate on the Thames every winter for a period of a few
      years back then. It’s all part of the natural ups and downs of the global
      climate.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Nonsense. So far. climate change policies have caused nothing but grief to the poor, and in the case of biofuels, starvation for many, and by not allowing Africa and the rest of the 3rd world access to cheap energy, two million smoke related deaths a year. And now the world is entering a cooling phase, and these vile policies get harder and harder on the poor. Shame on you, and do some research. It’s the sun, stupid. The sun.

  • David

    My knowledge of the physics of global climate systems, the history of this world’s constant, significant climatic changes and the computer modelling used to engage with these subjects was mainly gained as a very keen Physical Geography undergraduate some decades ago. So I can hardly claim to be an expert.

    However I know enough to realise that climate is naturally dynamic and its only constant is change. Moreover computer modelling is a very inexact science, especially when relying on temperature data influenced by so many extraneous variables, like the (ever changing) urban heat island effect, considerable variations in the solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere and then reaching ground level etc etc.
    So no, whilst I support sensible measures to use all of our resources, including energy, wisely, I am not convinced that all of the claimed variation is due to human activities. I certainly would not base an entire energy policy on it, and thereby have a huge negative impact on our industrial base, employment prospects for many as well as the valid social concerns for the poor who are being frozen to death. To me this smacks of an imposed belief system, not cautious, reasoned science. I am a staunch climate change sceptic.

  • Martin

    Gillan

    What a load of old tosh. We all know why it’s referred to as Climate Change instead of Anthropogenic Global Warming, it’s because there’s no evidence of warming.

    The scientists who push it are as dishonest as those who push Evolution, as was proven by the UEA emails scandal. The whitewash of an inquiry just proved it.

    Why else would all the politicians agree, unless it was a lie.

    • avi barzel

      A note of disaggreement. There is world of difference between evolutionary theory, which is well supported with transparent, tested, falsifiable empirical evidence and which involves a huge number of independent and unconnected scientists, and that of the newly concocted “climate science” which is government and industry sponsored and whose “results” are directed and predetermined. One is a science and other is a fraud.

      • Martin

        Sorry Avi but there is not the slightest piece of empirical evidence for Evolution. No one has ever observed the descent of all life from an original form, even in part. All we have is the interpretation of evidence to fit the Evolutionary paradigm, and where it doesn’t fit it is ignored. Evolutionary theory is a weight around the neck of real science, wasting money and skills on dead end ideas.

        • avi barzel

          Hold on there, Martin, I think you’re redefing “empirical” as direct observation of processes in real time and with a single observer. That is not the limiting ctiterion of empirical evidence. If ypu were to hold to that criterion consistently, you would have deny, among many things, huge swaths of physics, history…and your own religious convictions.

          Given the time required, measured anywhere between tens of thousands and millions of years for natural selection and mutation to change organisms, the only ideal observer would be God. An exception to this would be observable resistance of bacteria to antibiotics where both the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation are indisputably evident.

          There are many individual points of evidence within several categories. These include the genetic commonalities between all life forms, but especially shared genetic features between us and other mammals; the fossil record which shows a consistent and gradual record of transitions anywhere in the world; commonalities among humans and other animsls in embryos (gill slits, spines and tails) and the universality of the genetic code among in all cells of all life forms.

          None of this evidence, in spite of claims or speculations of individual scientists and secular ideologues, contradicts the position that God created the universe, the world and all life forms. All that the avidence does, is reveal the processes and mechanisms involved in Creation, reminding us that (for us) it’s an extremely long and apparently ongoing process.

          • If I see two houses, one large and one small, that share various ‘commonalities,’ I do not suppose that the smaller evolved into the bigger, or that they all evolved from mud huts. I suppose that they had the same architect.

          • avi barzel

            Not the best analogy, as houses are inorganic and man-made. Especially since houses are also examples of evolutionary principles operating in other areas, in this case in the development of architecture and building technologies. Designs, materials, structural elements and methods which are successful are repeated and further improved on. Brilliant, revolutionary discoveries of efficient methods and materials are analogous to mutation, a relatively sudden and novel process. Those that fail, or are not as good (soundness, longevity, ergonomucs or cost) as other ones disappear…ie, extinction. An example also would be Egyptian pyramid architecture. It took several unsuccessful tries to find the optimal angle which was structurally sound and economical.

            I should perhaps qualify more clearly: Evidence of evolutionary principles in nature and even in human social and technological endeavours does not remove God as the creator of all that exist. It mery reveals a system of Divine natural laws, a principle, by which the universe was created and operates under.

          • My friend, your post has nothing to do with evolution. All your examples are actually instances of intelligent design.
            Evolution, if there were such a thing, would be improvement through blind, random changes. It almost never happens. To effect improvement in anything requires intelligent input.

          • avi barzel

            My comment, Martin M, is an example of “theistic evolution” as it has been dubbed by some. It differs from Intelligent Design in that it is not a one-time, static creation of a life form, but a much more complex system of developing designs operating under natural laws and interacting with environments and physical events. It’s a process which we don’t understand completely, but properly and honestly applied scientific methodology offers the best research strategy for the task.

            The notion that evolution operates through blind and random chance is an untestable hypothesis with which science is stuck with due to its strict epistemological and methodological limitations. That is to say, for science theory to operate under its limited mandate, it can’t choose specific faith-based presumptions (out of thousands available) or choose and apply specific theological approaches.

            Where the reaction against evolution theory originates is in the understandable opposition to the Aristotelian notion that the universe is uncreated and always Has been there and the hypothesis that it operates under purely random principles. But these are not scientifically provable or even central propositions to evolutionary theory; they are epistemological postures and assumptions by secular or atheistic thinkers. In a paradigm of a created universe with a “managing” Creator, random is not truly random. It’s just a convenient conceptual construct to explain our limited understanding of God’s laws under which all existince operates. I think our positions, Martin, are much closer than you think, as we’re really quibbling over procedural details and definitions.

          • Martin

            Avi

            Actually, outside of real time science has no ability. Science can only be done in real time.

            And, of course, the ‘time required’ is part of the claim also. The process of “selection and mutation” has never been observed to produce the kinds of changes claimed, it’s a belief, nothing more. Resistance to antibiotics on the part of bacteria is an entirely different process, indeed some bacteria have always had resistance to some antibiotics. Clearly such an observation is nothing like the claims of goo to you.

            Genetic commonalities, including the genetic code, are equally evidence of the same designer at work. The fossil record shows only that something lived and died, the passage of time is still part of your unproven claim. Human beings have neither gill slits nor tails, the have pharyngeal ridges and the coccyx, which is the anchor point for muscles.

            The claims of Evolution certainly contradict God’s description of how He created, without evidence to support them.

            Of course, it could be said that because you haven’t seen a small house evolve into a larger that is no evidence that it cannot happen, given enough time.

          • avi barzel

            Hi Martin,

            Actually, outside of real time science has no ability. Science can only be done in real time.

            By themselves, without elaboration, these two brief sentences don’t make sense. What is “real time”? Time is a function of the observer and is relative to his frame of reference determined by relative motion. An astronaut orbiting the Earth at a high speed is in a different time frame than an Earth-bound colleague. Both are able to think and to perform science and both exist in “real time” from their points of reference.

            And, of course, the ‘time required’ is part of the claim also. The process of “selection and mutation” has never been observed to produce the kinds of changes claimed, it’s a belief, nothing more.

            We measure time by our frame of reference. We know that the time required for a beam of light to reach the Sun is roughly 8 minutes; for other galaxies, in millions or billions of years. It’s not clear to me how a “time requirement” works here. Selection and mutation are, indeed observed and observable processes, both through evaluation of historical evidence and in real time, in laboratories. We can directly observe it in simple life forms, but not in complex ones that took millions of years to change, of course. A theory is not a belief; it’s a developed, testable and falsifiable system of explanations.

            Resistance to antibiotics on the part of bacteria is an entirely different process, indeed some bacteria have always had resistance to some antibiotics.

            At issue are observable biological and morphological changes in bacteria which make one generation susceptible to damage from antibiotics and the next resistant. Clearly, all…not just some…bacteria have an inherent ability to resist bacteria, otherwise they would not be selected for it, or would not have the basic properties to allow for mutation. This is evolution in action, regardless of the time scale or the complexity and size of the organism.

            Clearly such an observation is nothing like the claims of goo to you.

            The Bible doesn’t describe specifically the process of exactly how God made all life forms and not all interpreters read the time frame of days, as we understand them, literally. Interestingly, it describes humankind as being made from what we translate as Earth from the Hebrew, adamah, hence Adam. He did not make Adam (whether it means an individual or Humanity) out of thin air, but use pre-existing matter…goo, if you like.

            Genetic commonalities, including the genetic code, are equally evidence of the same designer at work.

            All terrestrial life forms share commonalities if we go far back. All our DNA shows is the proximity of life forms, which shared common branches until they diverged.

            The fossil record shows only that something lived and died, the passage of time is still part of your unproven claim.

            There are dozens of ways to measure, check and corroborate the age of geological strata and remains of organisms. We know, for example, that oil, naphta, can not form in six or seven thousand years but requires much, much longer. If you want to quibble about the meaning of time and its relativity, fine, but from our time frame, the one we have on Earth, this is how we date events and objects.

            Human beings have neither gill slits nor tails, the have pharyngeal ridges and the coccyx, which is the anchor point for muscles.

            These are embryonic stages shared by most mammals, not properties in grown animals or humans.

            The claims of Evolution certainly contradict God’s description of how He created, without evidence to support them.

            This is a theological, and in some ways political position. From a Judaic perspective, which interests me, the theory of evolution does not present problems and does not challenge the axiom that God is the creator of the universe and Humankind. Nor is there a problem with time frames measured in billions of years according to our instruments and wits, or the obvious indication that the description of Creation in the Torah is not meant to be literal; something which Jewish theologians accepted in the Middle Ages, if not before, long before evolution theory came to be. If the evidence points to evolution, which under the orderly and rational rules set up by God Himself seems as the most plausible reality, then what is obvious to me and many others, is that this is the way God organized the process of Creation. It also tells me that we have to learn from this, just as we learn from the written word. The political part is in that while some Christian groups and sectors have no theological issues with evolution, others (recently among some ultra-Orthodox emulators as well) have built theologies, philosophies, reputations, industries and personal income around the rejection of evolution.

            Edit: PS regarding the rather inapplicable house analogy, see my response to Martin Marprelate below.

          • Martin

            Avi

            That you don’t understand them does not mean they don’t make sense. Science always operates in the present. GPS satellites also are in a different time frame, so what.

          • avi barzel

            Why bother with all this pseudoscientific bafflegab, Martin?

            If you had started off with your most relevant statement to your case, “let’s face it, the Jews rejected their Messiah, what grounds have they for claiming any special knowledge of the OT?” you would have made your case far more effectively…that on this subject, it’s about theology and central, firm beliefs, not science for you.

            Why not just say that a literal interpretation of the days and ways of creation is an unconditional part of your belief and traditions? That no evidence, no amount of argument, will convince you otherwise? I will, for example stand firm on the subject of God’s sole authorship of the Torah and its transmition at Sinai; linguistic research, J and P narratives and historical, archeological and Critical School of biblical scholarship notwithstanding. Awkward my rejection may be in historical and scientific terms, in academic debates or cocktail parties, but I won’t embarrass myself by throwing a laughable hodgepodge of pseudoscientific copy and pastes I don’t even understand, formulate conspiracy theories, mock serious scholars and specialists and an entire discipline with juvenile equivalents of “evolooney science, ” make blatantly stupid claims, silly evasions, and dismiss an entire multi-dusciplibary paradigm as “simply nonsense.” I will just simply say, that my faith does not require me to read Genesis literally, or as a specific Evangelical interpretation, but it does require me to accept God’s authorship of the Torah on faith. It’s really much easier.

          • Martin

            Avi

            I answered your claims of science with science, then when you claimed a special understanding I dealt with that too.

            Certainly the use of of day with a number is used 357 times outside Genesis. On each of these occasions it means a day of 24 hours, why would it mean anything else in Genesis?

            What you presented was a hodgepodge of pseudoscience, it really does not hold together. I showed you were wrong. The claims may be ‘multidisciplinary’ but they lack any empirical evidence to support the claim that ‘it happened’. If you ask for evidence of Evolution you will get assertion, if you ask for evidence of the long ages you will be given untested, uncalibrated claims. Evolution is simply not subjected to any sort of rigour in testing its claims, indeed, testing is disallowed. It is simply a philosophical belief.

          • avi barzel

            I answered your claims of science with science…

            No, you just repeat your conviction that what is widely acknowledged as science is in fact pseudoscience.

            …then when you claimed a special understanding I dealt with that too.

            Since I never claimed a “special understanding,” I don’t know how you could have dealt with it.

            Certainly the use of day with a number is used 357 times outside Genesis. On each of these occasions it means a day of 24 hours, why would it mean anything else in Genesis?

            Because it’s an allegory. An allegory uses regular words and terms which mean one thing to convey another thing. I also explained that my understanding of Genesis and how to interpret the Bible is different from yours. It follows different traditions, rules and logic. In this case, our mesora, or passed-on traditional knowledge and wisdom, is that Genesis is an allegory not meant to be taken literally. Long before there was physical evidence about the age and size of the universe, long before science suggested and began to establish evolution, our sages spoke freely about the days of creation as categories, rather than literal 24 hour periods. Leading Orthodox rabbis were not perturbed by evolution theory…only by the unfounded, un-scientific assertion associated with it by some. Most recently, the controverse arose in Jewish scholarship and cooled off once it was understood that evolution theory does not challenge the premise of Creation anymore that modern astronomy does. If you wish to claim that Jewish interpretations of its own scriptures and traditions are incorrect, you are making a theological claim to which you have a right to…and which I have a right to dismiss. But neither your conviction on this subject, nor mine, have anything to do with science.

            Your third paragraph is simply the umpteenth restatement of your belief. You have declared the physical sciences, rules of evidence and proper methodologies, over a dozen of well-tested dating technologies and specific and diverse scientific disciplines as “pseudoscience.” Somehow. Most astoundingly, you blithely declared that there was nor is any testing and that testing is disallowed! Based on what you’ve said so far, I suppose that if I point out that there are hundreds of thousand of examples of empirical tests upon which evolution theory is built, that this is how the theory of evolution came to be and is based on…an ongoing series of empirical tests which may be replicated and falsified by anyone…you will say that they are not true tests.

            This is why you and I can only debate this on theological grounds (a debate I won’t engage in); you do not accept the basic rules of evidence and the foundational methodology of science selectively, where they appear to challenge your beliefs.

          • Martin

            Avi

            I answered your claims with science.

            There is world of difference between evolutionary theory, which is well supported with transparent, tested, falsifiable empirical evidence and which involves a huge number of independent and unconnected scientists, and that of the newly concocted “climate science” which is government and industry sponsored and whose “results” are directed and predetermined. One is a science and other is a fraud.

            There is NO empirical evidence for Evolution. But you respond with generalities:

            Given the time required, measured anywhere between tens of thousands and millions of years for natural selection and mutation to change organisms, the only ideal observer would be God. An exception to this would be observable resistance of bacteria to antibiotics where both the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation are indisputably evident.

            This is part of the claim, not evidence & mutation & NS do not add up to Evolution. Indeed some bacteria have always been resistant to some antibiotics, again, no Evolution.

            There are many individual points of evidence within several categories. These include the genetic commonalities between all life forms, but especially shared genetic features between us and other mammals;

            Commonality points to a common designer.

            the fossil record which shows a consistent and gradual record of transitions anywhere in the world;

            The fossil record shows that animals lived & died in a watery environment, evidence of the Flood.

            commonalities among humans and other animsls in embryos (gill slits, spines and tails) and the universality of the genetic code among in all cells of all life forms.

            This is just pseudo scientific nonsense. Humans do not have gill slits or tails & as I have said commonality points to a common designer.

            Because it’s an allegory. An allegory uses regular words and terms which mean one thing to convey another thing. I also explained that my understanding of Genesis and how to interpret the Bible is different from yours. It follows different traditions, rules and logic. In this case, our mesora, or passed-on traditional knowledge and wisdom, is that Genesis is an allegory not meant to be taken literally.

            Genesis is not an allegory, nowhere does it indicate it is an allegory and your passed on traditional knowledge & wisdom is of little use since you do not acknowledge your Messiah. You have abandoned God for your traditions, much like the Church of Rome.

            Long before there was physical evidence about the age and size of the universe, long before science suggested and began to establish evolution, our sages spoke freely about the days of creation as categories, rather than literal 24 hour periods. Leading Orthodox rabbis were not perturbed by evolution theory…only by the unfounded, un-scientific assertion associated with it by some. Most recently, the controverse arose in Jewish scholarship and cooled off once it was understood that evolution theory does not challenge the premise of Creation anymore that modern astronomy does. If you wish to claim that Jewish interpretations of its own scriptures and traditions are incorrect, you are making a theological claim to which you have a right to…and which I have a right to dismiss. But neither your conviction on this subject, nor mine, have anything to do with science.

            Excuse me if I ignore what your traditions of men say, since God has spoken:

            He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4 [ESV])

            So clearly, Adam & Eve were real people, created in that first week of Earth’s existance.

            Your third paragraph is simply the umpteenth restatement of your belief. You have declared the physical sciences, rules of evidence and proper methodologies, over a dozen of well-tested dating technologies and specific and diverse scientific disciplines as “pseudoscience.” Somehow.

            No, I have pointed out that you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim, the dating technologies have not been tested, since they clearly cannot be tested & scientists believe in Evolution because they know the alternative is a God before whom they must one day stand to be judged. Evolution is a fraud.

            Somehow. Most astoundingly, you blithely declared that there was nor is any testing and that testing is disallowed!

            I suggest you watch the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” where the bigotry & prejudice of so called scientists who will only accept Evolution as an explanation is clearly displayed. There are also plenty of examples where qualified scientists have been excluded from their jobs because they either allowed a Creationist view to be published or held such a view themselves. If Evolution is such a sound theory why should this be so?

            Based on what you’ve said so far, I suppose that if I point out that there are hundreds of thousand of examples of empirical tests upon which evolution theory is built, that this is how the theory of evolution came to be and is based on…an ongoing series of empirical tests which may be replicated and falsified by anyone…you will say that they are not true tests.

            There are no such tests.”

            This is why you and I can only debate this on theological grounds (a debate I won’t engage in); you do not accept the basic rules of evidence and the foundational methodology of science selectively, where they appear to challenge your beliefs.

            Funny that, since I have destroyed your ‘scientific’ claims using science.

      • Anton

        Well said Avi.

  • Susan

    I bet you wish you had a bit of global warming just now! Can’t grow any gab ages it 3 foot of snow

  • APRODEFA

    Christian Aid could do more to “save the children” by not funding organizations which promote killing them by abortion.