A Frigid Winter and Militant Global Warmists

Anyone who his living through this winter knows that it has been one of the coldest winters in memory.  Across the United States and Canada it is has been frigidly cold and a considerable amount of snow (although where I live in southern PA the snow has been minimal, but it has been cold).   It seems apparent to me that such a winter is contrary to the claims of activists dedicated to the cause of global warming, haven’t they been saying that global warming will first cause the globe to warm?  So where has the warming been? 

In the National Post there is a fascinating article titled, “Forget Global Warming, Welcome to the New Ice Age.”  The author, Lorne Gunter, makes some great and relevant observations, both about the science of climatology and the culture of global warming activists.

To start, let’s look at this past winter.  Gunter points out that the January 2008 temperature average was .3 degrees colder than the average of the last century (1901-2000).   He adds that China is suffering its “most brutal” winter in memory and Toronto broke it’s February snowfall record, set back in the ’50s, in the first two weeks of February.  Additionally, a friend who lives in Salt Lake said that the Utah was at 120% of the snowfall average for the entire winter season, and that was in the first week of February (I should note that I have not validated that claim). 

So, so what?  One season does not a trend make! Amen to that.  But it is indicative that things are not as bad or dire as some may want us to believe, but let’s move on to other points made in this article.  One of the favorite fearmongering threats we here is that the polar ice caps are melting and are likely never to come to back.  I will not argue that the caps have been melting and that glaciers are in serious decline, but this winter has cured much of that.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

Two points here, the obvious is that the polar ice is in nowhere near as much trouble as we thought, the second is that though this is anecdotal evidence, that is essentially all global warmists use.  I love the last paragraph from the quote above.

The science mentioned in the article is very fascinating, but I will omit that information here as my post is getting too long and people don’t like to read that stuff much anyway (unfortunately) and I will address that info in future posts.  But there are some other points to be made about the environmentalists who have been ratcheting up the fear mongering and how their actions automatically caused me to question the validity of their claims. 

The first action that made me question global warming derives from the last paragraph of the quote above, that is that they use anything and everything, no matter how minute to try to install fear into us that we are all doomed because of global warming. 

The other action is the activists actions and attitudes towards anyone who either questions them or suggests that we look at all the science or theories out there.  People who suggest this are immediately and unequivocably cast aside as crazies and industry lackies.  Despite the fact that many of the global warming doubters are MIT, Harvard, and other respected researchers and scientists.  The Wall Street Journal had a must read article about this topic titled, “Chilling Effect: Global Warmists Try to Stifle Debate.” 

All three serious contenders for the Presidency acknowledge that more needs to be done to slow global warming and take care of the environment (I agree with the latter). So, as the article states:

You’d think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it’s precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics “in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial,” another envisions “war crimes trials” for the deniers. And during the tour for his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore himself belittled “global warming deniers” as unworthy of any attention.

I have noticed that type of response for a while now and it should give everyone pause.  If global warmists were so confident with their science why do they so vehemently stifle debate and criticize anyone who remotely questions them?  It makes no sense. 

Take for example, from the article, Bjorn Lomborg an author and left leaning believer of global warming.  In his recent book, “Cool It”, he simply calls for a reasoned debate on the appropriate responses to stem global warming.  This alone infuriated activists, many of whom considered him a traitor. 

Additionally, there is finally a major conference coming up to discuss the realities of climate change, basically an anti-global warming conference.  Undoubtedly the science presented will be as biased as the science presented at the pro-global warming conferences, but that is not the point.  The point is that the environmental activists are already demeaning the presenters as corporate apologists and that, ” ‘no real scientists’ (will be) present despite an impressive array of speakers such as Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” 

I am convinced that global warming as a whole is a sham.  Especially man-made global warming.  I am also convinced that the militant-like global warming activists are only using the issue to push a socialist and communist agenda.  Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but I am just calling it as I see it.  I can come up with no other explanation for the irrational claims, actions, and attitudes of the activist global warming movement.   

Global Cooling; Are we headed for a new Ice Age?

The whole topic of global warming is one that I am very interested in, yet have remained very skeptical of.   I think the reason I am so interested in it is because it appears to be difficult to get clear unbiased information. 

It occurred to me early on that there was something fishy about this whole global warming movement.  It just did not fit with the other major real concerns that we face as a planet.  The first red flag that went up was that the theory was accepted as fact from nearly the first time it was announced, despite the fact that 20 years earlier many were fearing global cooling.  

The second red flag was that all of the reports the media released about global warming were supporting the theory.  It appeared (and still does) that any reports questioning the theory or outright disagreeing with it was not only pushed under the rug, but the scientists whom produced the studies were immediately castigated and dismissed as cronies for corporate America and laughed off the stage, while the proponents of global warming were always presented as purer than freshly fallen snow. 

However, my take regarding this issue (after having been bashed over the head with the dangers of global warming) evolved from outright denial that it is actually occurring to accepting the fact that the earth was getting warmer, but that human activity had little to do with it.  Up to that point, I actually did very little research into the issue, so my opinions were questionable at best.

Now, while far from an expert, I am back to a full and outright denial that there is any major change in our climate.  It appears to me that certainly things are different now than 50 years ago, but so what?  The earth throughout its history fluctuates in temperature and climate, and the biggest reason for that fluctuation is activity of the Sun. 

This past week another study was released that is very interesting (of course, I don’t claim it to be the end all be all, science is an evolving study) and I find it important to get it out there if only to try to provide another voice to those whom disagree that man-made global warming is actually occurring.  Some researchers in Canada’s National Research Council have been studying the temperature of the sun and how it correlates to climate on the earth. 

Back in 1991, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better “eyes” with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth’s climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

There are two initial thoughts I get from these introductory paragraphs in the article: 1. Of course the Sun is going to have a more significant impact than anything else.  2. If journalists and media did not have an agenda, they would promote these findings as much as they do supporting global warming.  Here is more from the article:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun’s magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Certainly, this one study (though there are many like it) does not disprove or prove anything, it is just one study that happens to be contrary to what the media, many activists, and many scientists want us to believe.  

This current winter that we are in seems to be one of the coldest that I can remember, some family members in Utah reported to me that many of the ski resorts there were already at about 120% snowpack for the entire season, and that was at the end of January; they still have February and March left to go.  Granted, this is all circumstantial and not scientific evidence, but it is telling none the less. 

Now I wonder if eventually the discourse within the environemental movement will move from global warming back to global cooling over the next 25-50 years, here is betting they do.  You see, the environmental movement is only relevant and continues to receive funding when the common man is kept in a state of fear.  The same holds true with many other organizations, we are kept in a similar state of fear from terrorist attacks so that the government can spend more money and keep control; Thus, bringing it back to the environmental movement, environmentalists will do whatever necessary to promote the studies that support what they want to be true.  Does that mean the findings are not true?  No, it just means that the movement is being selective and pushing an agenda.

I would, therefore, argue that a study loses much of its lustre after it has been pushed and promoted too much by the environmentalists (and the same can be said for any study that is overly pushed by anyone).   So my basic point in writing this was to encourage the reader to question the common wisdom and always look for alternative theories.   I used this particular study here to demonstrate that there is conflicting evidence, evidence that I find to be more convincing than claims made by hollywood, but I also recognize that this study is not gospel.  However, it does provide an alternate look into climate change, one that should not be ignored by the media or anyone who honestly is seeking to understand what is really going on as opposed to pushing an agenda.

(May I add an interesting observation?  It seems to me that the environmental movement is already moving away from global warming as the key phrase and are moving to “global climate change.”   Do you see the significance of this change?  Basically, anytime any significant climate event occurs, either in support of warming or cooling, they will be able to claim they were right and, thus, can continue to push their agenda, no matter how radical it may be.   This change also demonstrates that there are cracks in the armor of the warming movement and more and more studies are being released that refute their claim.)

Peace Cereal: Delicious, Despite Being from Hippies

Last week my wife came home from the grocery store with the normal staples and Peace Cereal. Everyonce and a while, she will try to bring food home that is supposedly more healthy and organic. Usually, I am childish and won’t it eat based on general principle of not wanting to support some crazy PETA-type agenda. However, one night as my stomach was growling I was looking in the pantry for some delicious cereal. I saw the normal: Chex, Honey-nut Cheerios, etc. None of them suited my fancy. Then I saw the maple pecan Peace Cereal.

At first glance the box looks like any other cereal, it has an oversized picture of a bowl with cereal and milk and a logo. Yet is definitely unique. At the bottom of the front it announced that “10% of Proceeds Donated to Peace”, whatever that means. On the right side of the box it also announces that it is 70% organic (how disappointing! only 70%, the hippies are slackin) and Vegan. This is followed by the nutritional chart and then the company information:

Peace Cereal, Golden Temple of Oregon, Inc., Eugene Oregon

Golden Temple, eh? All I can picture is some crazy guy with a ridiculously long beard wearing a long white robe and smelling terrible. But more on that in a bit.

This guy, but with a long white, Lorenzo Snow type beard.

So, despite this being above and beyond the organic stuff my wife normally buys, I decided to try it. And glad I was. It is fantastic. The oat clusters weren’t all sissy and few and far between like in Honey Bunches of Oats, but they were big and plentiful. The flakes were also of a better quality; thicker and larger than most. Kudos to the Golden Temple.

So while I was eating and being surprisingly satisfied, I read more of the box. On the back was the typical advertisements about how good the cereal was and they clarified the “profits for peace,” apparently they donate to Medicines Global who provide medical supplies from the West to impoverished countries. Then on the left side of the box is an explanation of who they are, this is great, I got a good chuckle; here are some quotes:

“We sponsor International Peace Prayer Day held every June in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico. This joyously inspirational event joins humanitarians, world leaders, musicians, and peac-loving people in celebration and prayer for peace.”

Well, I don’t know who the world leaders are, but I doubt there are any of consequence that show up. All I picture is the 60’s and some crazy cult follower people.

The leader of Golden Temple is Yogi Bhajan, his picture reminds me of an Indian version of what I envision a portrait of Mohammed would look like. Sadly, though this is modern day and while that look was the norm in the 7th century, it is not today. So basically he looks like a standard hippy cult leader who will someday lead his crew to some crazy organizad suicide as a result of there being too much war in the world.

Hippies are funny folk, they scare me and I think they are nuts. But they can make a tasty treat!

Are Mormons Christian? A Matter of Semantics

This question is one that has been continually argued since the inception of Mormonism. On the one hand Mormons say, “of course we are Christian, we believe that Jesus is God, he is the savior of the World. Even the name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

On the other hand, mainstream Christianity (MSC) would argue that Mormons (LDS) are not Christian because LDS do not believe in the trinity (or as MSC likes to put “Mormons don’t believe in the same Jesus we do.”) – in that God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the exact same being.

Quite frankly, the debate is old and ridiculous. Honestly, it is a debate based upon semantics that will really have no bearing on either parties eternal salvation. Regardless of who is right, both MSC and LDS believe in God the Father, our supreme being, the creator and organizer of heaven and earth. We both believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God, the savior of the World, that he died for our sins and was resurrected in order to redeem us from both spirtual and physical death. We both believe in the holy spirit, who testifies of the father and the son and confirms their divinity through his presence. These are the beliefs God is truly looking for. Are we excercising such faith in him. Our understanding of the nature of God, though interesting and thought provoking, is not what God is judging us on, he is judging us on our faithfulness to his commandments and if we have accepted Christ as our savior. Undoubtedly, those in MSC and LDS have, even if we differ slightly on who Christ is.

Now, a note to Mormons, it is understandable that we want to be considered Christian and it is also understandable that we are offended when people say we are not. But you need to understand that MSC differentiates between believing in Christ and being Christian. I would hope that all those in MSC recognize that LDS believe in Christ. So when they say that we are not Christian, it means we do not believe in Christ the way they do, and hence, we do not fall under the Christian umbrella. Fine, so what? There is a reason that Mormonism is not a protestant faith, LDS is supposed to be different. So when mainstream Christians say that you are not Christian, smile and say, “if you say so.” Realize that no matter how much talking, discussing and arguing is done, one will not prove the other wrong. We are all already stuck in our ways.

Now, let’s discuss the origins and background for each argument. First, let’s point out that there is SIGNIFICANT evidence throughout the Bible supporting both MSC’s trinity and LDS’s Godhead arguments. So, I am not going to address Biblical evidences, again both points of view are strongly argued in the Bible. (I recognize that many on both sides will likely disagree with me on that, but I have had the Trinity vs. Godhead discussion enough times to know that no amount of time spent debating or discussing will prove one side or the other wrong). So, I simply want to address the origins for such beliefs outside of Biblical records.

Let’s start with the LDS Godhead – that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings. Quite simply the basis for this belief is rooted in the very beginning of the LDS movement – Joseph Smith’s first vision. As a young man Joseph was troubled by the various religions and their differences. He recognized the need for baptism and other ordinances, for the Bible taught that. But because there were so many different Christian faiths, he did not know which one was true. As a result, he took James’s advice and asked God. He went into a nearby patch of woods to have some privacy and began to pray; to find out which church was true. During this prayer he says God the father and Jesus Christ visited him. It was at this instance that the doctrine of the Godhead was solidified in the LDS Church; God and Jesus both visited the boy Joseph, they were not one being.

Now whether you believe this actually occured or not is neither here nor there. I only share it to explain that this is an unequivocal doctrine for the LDS Church and that this why it is believed. (Now, before many of you start commenting about how that is not biblical and JS is a false prophet, please spare me; remember that there is siginificant biblical evidence in support of the Godhood belief.)

In fact, these differences of opinion on the nature of God is what lead modern-day Christianity and Catholicism to their current trinitarian belief. From the death of Christ, or, more appropriately, Peter (as he was head of the Church after Christ’s death) through the reign of Emporer Constantine (who made Christianity a dominant religion) there was siginficant debate on this precise issue – the Nature of God. It was not until the First Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD) that the debate ended and the official belief of Christianity was that of the Trinity. Again, it is important to note that before this, there was no definitive definition, both sides were argued constantly.

So ultimately, what the argument comes down to is a matter of faith. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed version or the Joseph Smith version? There is nothing wrong with believing in either one in my opinion. I certainly have my beliefs, but I do not fault anybody for having theirs either. We are all entitled to them.

The point is, is so what if MSC don’t think LDS are Christian? If being Christian means that I have to deny my faith and subscribe to what the majority think, I don’t want to be considered a “Christian.” Further, if people like “Christian Leader” Bill Keller represent Christianity, I want nothing to do with it. Christ did not spend his time preaching hate and vitriol against the faith of others, he simply taught what he knew to be the truth and went on his way. That is what I think the LDS Church tries to do, at least as a whole. Mormons should not worry so much about what others think of them (although it is hard not to), but focus on ways to improve yourself and strengthen your faith. This is the same thing people of all faiths should be doing. All people should share their beliefs when appropriate, but do not criticize those of others. If entering into a conversation or debate about religion make sure it ends cordially and simply agree to disagree, people have been arguing religion since Cain and Abel.

It’s not about “the science”.

According to (suprisingly) the NY Times, The former, and I stress former, Surgeon General is claiming censorship.

Interesting, that a position that traditionally has been bi-partisan if not politically neutral has all of the sudden cried foul play, and just short of a year later. He complains that officials had him come to meetings to explain “the science” of things like global warming but wasn’t heard. He also claims he was pressured to not release reports about the dangers of even brief contact with second hand smoke. I would love to ask him a few questions of my own.

1) Why now? Why did you wait for over a year to even bring this up?

2) You were elected to a position that is meant to safeguard the American people, why did you allow politics to interfere with that end?

There are more, but they are all inter-related with the above. Here’s what I got from the article. There is a former surgeon general that was not asked for another term, even though his adminstration was, now he’s upset because he didn’t take advantage of his time in office. Here’s why, when he consulted the Surgeon Generals that were appointed by the Reagan and Clinton administrations, both stated they felt political pressure to either release, or not release certain findings or theories from the administrations. Yet, both of them had the fortitude to release them anyway. Dr. Carmona, unfortunately was not as strong. He didn’t have the spine to stand up for science, now he’s stating that people didn’t respect his scientific opinion. I don’t respect his opinion now either, he has shown that scientific finding and reason are not his number one priorities, even while sitting as Surgeon General of the United States.

He can complain all he wants, but this isn’t about “the science”. This is about a doctor that did not live up to his appointment, and is now trying to blame someone else for his own folly. I’m not buying it. Did he honestly believe that the American people wouldn’t support him if he released a report about the dangers of second hand smoke? If he were to release such a report, what president would dismiss the man that reported on an issue that is very important to the people? The answer is none. It’s not about censorship or “the science”, this doctor is just feeling remorse for not doing what he was appointed to do.

~ RationalZen