Whom should we fear?

Whom should we fear? Felicity O’Brien St Chad’s Linwood June 25 2017

Matt 10:24-39 Rom 6:1b-11

Whom should we fear? Or rather, who should we be afraid of? Our Gospel reading tells us not to be afraid of anything that is covered up, because everything will come out into the open. Don’t be scared of secrets and whispers, or of those who bully you and give you a hard time. Fear only the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

That means don’t be scared of bullies! Don’t be sacred of other people!

Part of being a human being means, unfortunately, that we need to put up with other human beings. People can be really horrible to each other, and we know that it’s always been like this. People didn’t suddenly get awful just this century. Continue reading

Injustice in equality, Churches promote inflation

Guest post by Kevin O’Brien, retired Charted Accountant and former consultant to the Government of (then Western) Samoa.

The living wage claim imbroglio has done us good in having to examine wages and living costs: I am not so sure it has done us right. It took a bit of looking to find the paper setting out the claims to a “living wage” of $18.40/hr; they were not on the Anglican Church Family Centre web site [1], in whose name they were, but on the Living Wage NZ site who commissioned them. [2]

The claim then is political – a creature of the unions and the ultra left greens with the churches donning social-justice robes and blessing all, other than those who ultimately have to pay. The politics of envy are writ large: bosses and others must be richer, so they can pay, to match our spending aspirations. If the boss class hasn’t got it, then the Government must have. Someone needs to pony up to satisfy our unrequited hunger for more.

I suspect there is sin somewhere in the midst of this. Is it right to heavy employers, a.k.a. bosses, to pay more when no more is going to come their way to meet the extra demand? Is it right to set demands for pay in excess of minimum reasonable needs? Is it right to pay a single 18 year old straight from year 13 at high school the same hourly rate as an experienced single worker, or one a few years further on who has a spouse, and the population replacement minimum 2 children, the same hourly rate also? If justice is about balance where is it here? Are ability and contribution of a worker to producing residual income to be ignored? 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.