IFPL is doing a very important thing in the name of God's people - that is addressing the crises of our time that affect our neighbors now, not only in some future, under the auspices of love for God and love for people. THAT is what the world needs now (in addition to love sweet love).

This reminds me of a certain rockstar, Bono's remarks (watch) or (read) to the National Prayer Breakfast in 2006 where invited dignitaries included President George W. Bush and Prince Abdullah.

Bono said, "When churches started demonstrating on debt, governments listened—and acted. When churches starting organising, petitioning, and even—that most unholy of acts today, God forbid, lobbying… on AIDS and global health, governments listened—and acted.

I'm here today in all humility to say: you changed minds; you changed policy; you changed the world."

I can not agree with the comment "IFPL is doing a very important thing in the name of God's people - that is addressing the crises of our time that affect our neighbors now, not only in some future, under the auspices of love for God and love for people. THAT is what the world needs now (in addition to love sweet love)."

It appears that Al Gore and all those touting (IFPL, et.al.) a looming global warming disaster are without a true scientific basis. There is no consensuses in science that global warming is a major concern. Note the following information:

First the temperature fluctuations over the last 4,500 years at http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

and also...

World temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/

TWELVE MONTH LONG DROP IN WORLD TEMPERATURES WIPES OUT A CENTURY OF WARMING

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

---Michael Asher, in Daily Tech, February 26, 2008

First, I think that the Hill in question here might be "Capitol" (though "Capital" is cleverly punny, as it is a capitalistic sort of place...).

Now a response to David:

One empirical point of evidence you provide forthrightly with your quotation from Michael Asher is that in the popular media, non-specialists take hold of some facts and anecdotes, and then creating a narrative that is not warranted by the totality of evidence.

The article offers several of the key skeptical talking points with regards to climate change: scientists are not in agreement, there are many areas in which temperatures are unseasonably cold (as an example, we have snow today in Southern California's Inland Empire when last week, temps were in the hundreds!), temperatures rise and fall in cycles, etc. etc.

The glaring omission in all of that is that the scientific community, peer-reviewed scientists, have found that CO2 is related to rising temperatures. That is not the area of debate. The debate is political in nature, and revolves around what, if anything, ought to be done.

Alex Carpenter has posted several times already (and I offer again) a point-by-point response to each of the objections raised in the article above along with many more objections.

And while we're talking anecdotes, it is worth noting that the United States' own Skeptic-in-Chief, President George W. Bush, reiterated in an interview with Politico that global warming is real.

Jared, please respond to the 4,500 years of temperature fluctuations chart at http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif which demonstrates the world's temperatures repeat within a general high-low pattern and temperature change is largely caused by major volcanic eruptions.

It appears to me that you have made up your mind on global warming in spite of any evidence to the contrary. So it does not really matter what is shown in opposition to your global warming view... you would not concede there is any validity in those facts that show global warming is not the problem that some try to postulate it is.

I contend that while global warming may happen in some areas global cooling is happening in other areas. This is what the 4,500 years temperature chart proves. Temperature ranges are pretty much in a cyclical balance up (warming) and down (cooling). A range of a few degrees up or down from a normal 57 degrees Fahrenheit.

David,

No, you're correct here, I think. Not in saying that my mind is so firmly made up that I'm willing to ignore evidence to the contrary, but rather that there are quite clearly natural cycles of warming and cooling.

I like to think that I am a fairly open-minded person, which to me includes the willingness to be proven wrong, and to admit it when it happens.

Where I think we're talking past each other is in regards to anthropogenic (human caused) warming. This is quite separate from the natural cycles caused by water, sun, seismic activity and other "natural" causes.

When those patterns are accounted for, there is still (if I understand the science properly) significant warming that corresponds to rising levels in CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, this point is not disputed in the scientific community as far as I can tell. The dispute (and this is where Al Gore enters the picture) is in the discussion of what should be done with regards to it all.

WHAT DO I KNOW?

I need to admit, and I think that for conversation to happen on this topic we all would do well to admit, that I/we am/are not specialists in climate science. I don't always understand secondary sources, let alone primary source material on these issues. I have spent many hours trying to make sense of some pretty heavy material in sorting out the extent to which science affirms anthropogenic climate change.

What I am committed to, and I hope we all are, is going as close as possible to primary source material from credible sources. Then, from that point, I make my inferences and conclusions.

And so far, my reading has led to the conclusion that science does affirm human-induced warming at a rate much faster than any "natural" warming would occur.

Here are many more charts and graphs to consider that show more closely the recent changes in Earth's temperatures.
Click here

Jared, thank you for your response and the additional Internet resources. I can agree with most of your post. I guess where I part ways is with the hypocritical Al Gore involvement about what is happening and why and what to do about it. I am reminded about the Scriptural advice (paraphrased) to take care of the "beam in your own eye before trying to take care of the one in your neighbors eye"

Gore's use of a personal jet, SUV's and huge personal residence (using 20 times the average family's energy consumption - see verification of this data at http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp) and other information about the huge amount of money he generates for himself from his promotion of green carbon offsets, etc. gives me the distinct feeling that "his actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word he says"!

Thank you for your openness in your dialog and responses!

While Interfaith Power and Light are well-meaning, they are pursuing an immoral path. Global warming, while real, has nothing to do with man's activities. It began a century before the industrial revolution at the end of the Little Ice Age. It is highly correlated with solar cycles.

Efforts to decrease global warming are doomed to failure and will divert precious resources from adaptation to climate. It will take roughly 10% of the GDP of the world over the next 50 years to reduce global temperature 1/10 of a degree Fahrenheit. Imagine what those resources could do in God's mission to save mankind!

Anyone who wishes to see the facts should begin at http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/freearticles/CalltoTruth.pdf. There are more certified climate scientists who oppose the concept of man-made global warming than support it. Unfortunately, they are denied publication, even to the extent of "minority reports" in UN pronouncements.

IP&L have been deluded by the mainstream press which does not wish the truth to be known.

Ted Noel

Increasing regulation (environmental and otherwise) in the West is part of the reason China and India are growing so fast now. The more we increase our costs in the West, we destroy our own industry and move it abroad. We thereby enrich the Chinese et al. and give them the wherewithal to buy more cars, oil, gas, etc. We also buy the products they then make that we are unwilling to because of regulations, and borrow from them to do it. We are now a debtor nation, and yet continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by proposing even more restrictive legislation/regulation even though the Chinese and Indians won't be following it.

Is your Christian pastors' group prepared to take responsibility for the increasing poverty and despair that will arise in the West as a result? Are you prepared to help the increasing numbers of unemployed, bankrupt and homeless? Or will you be looking to Big Government to borrow more money from China to take care of them? Where will it end?

Ted,

I have not met you.

I understand an old Prof. of mine, Simon Kistemaker at RTS who attended the same graduate theology school as Hans LaRondelle to receive a Th.D.(Free University of Amsterdam), put a blurb on your book which I have not read, "I Want To Be Left Behind."

We must have lunch sometime as I understand you also live in greater Orlando.

Regards,

pat

RT,

I agree with most of your comments but see them as the "result" of fast track development of China by Investment Banks in the West and US Treasury and Fed Policy of especially the last 10 years.

It has destroyed the dollar and created demand far in excess of supply for oil as well as development worldwide by the loose money policy of world central banks.

Add labor unions as another aspect/motivation for "Investment Banks" to leave the US Industries high and dry for cheap labor. Now, at this point, lets put your scenario into play.

Regards,

pat

Here is more evidence that Scientists are not in agreement on global warming.

31,000 Scientists Shatter the Myth of a "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming

Environmental extremists routinely assert a "scientific consensus" that global warming is occurring, and that human activity somehow causes it. This week, however, over 31,000 scientists spoke up and reduced that myth to a smoldering rubble.

The environmentalists' alleged "scientific consensus" is much like the curtain in The Wizard of Oz, behind which the supposedly infallible wizard dictated to his minions. Beyond that curtain, however, the wizard was nothing more than an ordinary little man perpetrating a fraud upon those who worshipped his doctrine. And once Toto removed that curtain, the fraud was exposed for all to see.

Similarly, environmentalists’ mythical “scientific consensus” has served as a shroud behind which they have sought to maintain an air of infallibility. By falsely claiming a closed consensus and excoriating anyone who speaks out against their flawed orthodoxy, environmental extremists seek to prevent any objective, scientific debate that might inhibit their political agenda.

That shroud, however, was further torn this week by a 31,000-strong petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the OISM’s board of scientists, “a review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature.”

To the contrary, the OISM notes that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have actually increased plant growth rates, among other positive effects. On this basis, the OISM concludes that “predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.”

Accordingly, the straightforward petition reads:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition itself appears alongside a letter from the late Frederick Seitz, a former President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Seitz stated that “the United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other organic compounds.” He therefore warned that, “this treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research into data on climate change does not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

It should be noted that the OISM’s petition effort receives absolutely no funding from the energy industry, or from anyone else with a financial interest in the ongoing climate change debate. Rather, its funding derives entirely from private, non-tax-deductible contributions from individual donors.

Global warming alarmists will nevertheless exclaim, like the “wizard” in The Wizard of Oz, “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Their agenda simply cannot tolerate dissent, contrary evidence, or objective discussion of the matter. Instead, they cling to the claim of a false consensus, and liken any objective disagreement to flat-earth proponents. According to Al Gore, for instance, “there is as strong a consensus on this issue as science has ever had.”

Oh? Is it as strong as the supposed consensus when Newsweek announced on November 23, 1992 that “the advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed,” and that “the devastation will be astonishing?”

Gore’s comment is obviously absurd on its face. A scientific consensus does exist in well-settled scientific subjects, such as the laws of gravity or physics. But this is certainly not the case when it comes to climate change.

We can thank the OISM, its leadership and its 31,000 participating scientists for helping shatter the environmentalists’ myth.

You can find this information at http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_...

Not sure how this slipped through.

The Oregon petition is a big hoax.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_a...

Almost no scientist and we're talking anyone in the academy on doing research, particularly on climate science takes them seriously. They are a far-right petition outfit that just invited anyone with a B.S. to sign on to their petition denying global warming. Anyone who cites them without even acknowledging their methods shows just how rigorous their own intellectual criteria is.

I have yet to hear Pat Travis repudiate citing them as well.

It keeps coming back to peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals. Peer-reviewed science is not equivocated. It probably isn't hard to collect a group of signers of people who agree with one another in their skeptical beliefs on climate change. But to publish science in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal is quite another thing.

When it comes to peer-reviewed work, the weight of the evidence is stacked against the signature collectors.

Hi Alex,

You brought up Crossan. Do you agree with everthing he said or did you have specific points that you wanted to make by using him? I previously explained that was what I was doing with the generality of numbers proving anything and the Oregan petition. Likewise "consensus" doesn't prove science.

nuff said!

pat