God in climate change

Guest post by Kevin O’Brien

Christians worry too much, relying on their own understandings and accepting the misinformation barrage.God has a simple logical proof as well as his word that disproves the reality of the whole of the climate alarmism.

The latest leaked draft IPCC report AR5 attempts to cover over their previous failed scary projections by offering “trust me it will get worse”. Unfortunately science in the climate arena has largely abandoned truth for advocacy and PhD student models. This is no comfort to those who have come to believe their island homes will swamped or other speculative alarmist scenarios.

God has his answers:

Firstly for us to try to reduce the global temperature by only 1/20 of a degree would cost 4/5ths of the worlds productive output. What sort  of God do we have that would put us in that position? This chart is based on accepted science referred to on the 50 to 1 site:

Claymore_1_edge

Secondly we don’t have the world-wide productive capacity or land to enable a switch to biofuels, nor are wind farms or solar panels sufficient. Renewable energy is more aspirational than real. Here it is described as a disaster: it should be described as totally impossible on a global scale. Can we trade topsoil for fuel oil? Where do we get scarce phosphorus for future food crops? God does not expect us to beggar ourselves or our neighbours to produce motor fuel.

Thirdly the switch to renewable energy brings great injustice. Who is to bear the rising food prices and resulting famines? Our God is a God of justice so this is against Gods’ will.

The solution that fits all this: we will adapt to the natural climate changes, the islands will not sink unless supporting water reservoirs are used up, coral will still grow up to sea level; the earth has an unmeasurable equilibrium which each of us will find different in our own lifetimes.

There is energy. God hasn’t abandoned His every growing people to a world without adequate agreeable energy. Nuclear fuel has got a bad reputation because the electric power industry preferred to use uranium to provide a by-product for atomic weapons.

Thorium is no use for bomb making nor popular with terrorists but does make good heat and hence electricity. While it is radioactive, you can hold it safely in your hand. It is now being used in low temperature reactors which cannot explode or do a Chernobyl. The reactors have the potential for factory assembly for neighbourhood use and the fuel is plentiful. Trust God to have provided even before we were aware of our needs.

Advertisements

IPCC Climate change “Pig in a Poke”, Where’s the truth?

This month the IPCC will meet with great publicity to write the political executive summary of their 5th Assessment Report. See Vincent Gray on the background to these here. David Rose at the Mail on Sunday questions how they got it all so wrong.”Climate change sceptics are more outspoken. Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance’.

A fine technical explanation countering man made global warming.

IPCC AR5 Renews Demands For Governments Buy Their Climate Change Pig In A Poke

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Buying “a pig in a poke” refers to buying an unseen piglet in a sack. The piglet was actually a cat, so when you opened the sack after purchase “the cat was out of the bag.”

Governments bought the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘pig’ ‘that human CO2 was causing global warming wrapped in the ‘poke’ of their Reports. IPCC assured buyers it was a pig with 90+ percent certainty.

They fooled governments and media four times now they offer a new poke in Assessment Report 5 (AR5), but with 95 percent certainty it’s a pig. This is despite the fact that the cat is already out of the bag. Their predictions have failed. For 17 years global temperatures have declined while CO2 levels continue to increase. Arctic summer ice, supposedly all gone by 2013 has recovered by 60 percent in one year. Severe weather has not increased. Damage done by policies already implemented, such as green jobs and alternate energies, is already evident. Newspaper coverage declined dramatically as people sense problems even if they don’t understand (Figure 1). Decline followed the peak created by Gore’s false fantasy An Inconvenient Truth.

2000-2013_climate_coverage

Figure 1

Instead of acknowledging error, the IPCC [tries] to defend the indefensible. This alone warrants disbanding of the agency. Continue reading

Living with the climate is cheaper: 50 to 1

The 50 to 1 Project site for more –

I heartily recommend this short video to you – it tells us why climate change should not be financially crippling our planet.

You may recollect some of the same information in our previous blog about Lord Christopher Monckton.

Viscount Monckton – The triumph of the individual over the hive mind

Some earlier posts on this site:

Deprivation & no climate change

Salvation in traditional vs green theology

Global warming takes a vacation

Global cooling from UN

Warmist injustice

Deprivation – and no climate change (UN).

Now that the UN Climate Change Chief has admitted NO global warming in the past 17 years, recall what has been and not been done. Whose keepers are we? Part of this video raises these issues.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

UN Climate Change Panel Chief admits lack of warming…

The Australian -Climate NO climate Change

(Paywalled)                                                                                                   (Click image to enlarge.)

This is how the lack of warming show shows up on a graph based on UN data.

. Some scientists are proposing that we are entering a period of potentially rapid cooling which would be much more difficult to live in with reduced food production and restricted energy choices. The IPCC computer models have been shown to fail miserably to predict long term climate. Can we afford to take the risk of them being wrong?

Graphic from the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose

Graphic from the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose (Derived from  IPCC Draft AR-5)

Now, enjoy the wriggle: warmist denies warming requires warming!

Trenberth : Warming No Longer Requires Warming

A world view

Haves and haves not    - Courtesy of NASA 2012

Haves and haves not – Courtesy of NASA 2012                                    (Click image to enlarge)

This introduces our new Global issues page. Selected articles will appear as posts but will be linked and kept indexed on that page.

This is a clever composite by NASA showing the world through the evening hours taken from about 800km (500m) above the earth. Africa is in the centre.Do you notice how dark Africa is? That’s not because nobody wants electricity. It’s because the environmental ‘police’ refuse to allow Africa to develop her natural resources, such as hydro, because of the impact it might have on wildlife. The only development allowed is that by outsiders, who end up taking the land. ( see next post)

Meanwhile, people use open fires inside their little houses to cook their food. Many babies fall in and are killed or maimed every year, and  people suffer eye diseases as a result of the smoke.

As Christians we have a responsibility towards our fellow human beings in Africa. Next time you switch on a light, think about them, and what you can do to challenge the anit-human pro-environmental policies that the world green police are imposing on these people.

.

Global warming takes a vacation

Washington Times 17Jan2013Thanks to Whaleoil for his re-post. Here is the article from the Washington Times of 17 January 2013.

Those who dare assert the Earth’s temperature isn’t on a perilous rise are derided as “deniers.” For liberals, the climate debate has ended, and it is an unquestionable article of faith that mankind’s carbon-dioxide emanations have set the stage for rising oceans, devastating hurricanes and disasters on a scale never before seen. To say otherwise is unthinkable, and that has created a dilemma. It’s not actually getting warmer.

In a paper published Tuesday, no less an authority than NASA scientist James E. Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” Mr. Hansen is the intellectual godfather of the global-warming movement who advised Al Gore on his Oscar-winning climate-scare flick, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Mr. Hansen has just acknowledged more than the lack of warming. His words confirm nature, not mankind, played the decisive role in directing global temperatures over the past 10 years.

Continue reading

Global cooling from UN?

Guest post by Kevin O’Brien

The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has prepared a final draft of an updated assesment, AR5. That draft has been leaked worldwide as it shows data that strongly suggests real cooling. Previous leaked emails from some principal climate ‘scientists’ showed concerns that the data wasn’t matching up to their models with a lack of warming, despite their wishes.

Whaleoil has reported the leak and refers to James Delingpole at The Telegraph.  Another, Watts Up With That, reports in much greater detail as well as providing sources.  Here is a reproduction of an original page from the AR5 draftt report that is causing much excitement.

Data at variance with models. IPCC AR5 FIG 1-4

Data at variance with models? IPCC AR5 FIG 1-4

My modified view of the figure is below. Click on each for a larger view.

AR5 Draft Fig 1-4 modified.

AR5 Draft Fig 1-4 modified.

The observations have been joined in yellow and clearly they are lying at the bottom of the figure. Watts comments on the grey model being discredited and the observations barely make it into the AR4 model too. If this is warming, it is hardly measurable and visually, ignoring the confidence bands, it looks like it is heading in the cooler direction. Can you base public policy on such data?

The added three-year moving average shows all the observations below the models except the grey. If this was a stock market chart it would be tempting to take a short position on a market decline. Another couple of declining data points would seal that view.

How trustworthy are the models? This is the first time I have seen these and they are disturbing in their simplicity. You can almost put a ruler along the tops and bottoms of each of the 4 models’ ranges shown. That means that the projections are near linear. What is to change that? Are we seeing a lack of commonsense demonstrated: surely the model makers are not saying that they expect the climate to keep on warming continuously at a defined rate? If so, what sort of delusional disorder are they suffering from? The corollary from their models is, if they are believed to be true, we may already be facing an unstoppable disaster. Do the model makers really believe that? Can Christians really believe that?

There is an another explanation, that the models are just that and some enjoy crafting them with their bits and bytes. Others, using them, seek then to maintain the position of Canutes to appear to stop the fearful unknown process of the scenario before them. This is a recipe for political control on a grand scale. Is that what is driving this? Also there is a lot of global corporate money to be made from such control, which brings with it the rents from resources. It will not be the richest who will be paying such rents. The green watermelons who publicly despise such corporates have also  taken this on as a cause for action as fits their communist origins and belief in controlled order.

Has justice fled or been redefined so that children are even denied medicine because neighbouring trees provide shelter for other creatures.

God made all, but made people in the image of God. I do not believe he loves any tree more than any single hair on any human head.