Category: Global Warming

Planned Parenthood And Their Hypocritical Concern for Haiti

So what? They are sick. Who cares? Well, while it probably turns the stomach of the average American to think that what Haiti really needs now is abortion technology and won’t pay a dime to support Planned Parenthood’s operations, in fact the average American is already responsible for doing just that: they elected Barack Obama, who, in one of his first acts as new president, restored United States funding of the UNFPA. Moreover, our tax dollars support Planned Parenthood.

It is a bizarre irony that generous Americans are working so hard to help the people of Haiti and suffering people all over the globe while at the same time the American government is working hard to fund organizations that believe that it is better for us all if there were fewer of these people to begin with.

Share

The Silence of the Wolves: Atheists Turn Docile in Face of the Facts

Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Dan Barker, Austin Cline. I add this to cap off the general lesson that I would like to draw here, as the four names I have listed here are prominent atheistic spokespersons: atheists are not the vanguards of reason that they would like us to believe they are; they make mistakes just like everyone else, and no one should think that they are above being too proud to admit it when they are. These examples I have given are minor in the grand scheme of things but I submit that they illustrate why no one should ever defer thinking to anyone else, regardless of how smart they insist they are, how many degrees they have, how high their IQ is, or even if they currently represent the consensus position on a topic, be it evolution, global warming, climate change, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The intellectual elite which I have called out in this post answer to a higher standard and I hope that this post will elicit some acknowledgment that their arguments are not always as rock solid as they suggest. I predict quite the opposite, so again: remember in your skepticism to be skeptical too of the skeptics.

Share

Climategate to be followed by Evolutiongate?

From US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN (full report):

In a series of emails on August 30, Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Sues discussed the Smithsonian’s procedures for hiring and firing a Research Associate and how Dr. Sternberg was approved for his RA position. Sues lamented that “The Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by senior management because his CV looks credible and does not reveal his interactions with the creationist movement.”44 Dr. Sues seemed to be suggesting that if Sternberg’s supposed interactions with the “creationist movement” were known, he would not have been approved as an RA, and the “situation” would have been prevented. [More…]

Dr. Ferrari’s comments also suggested a very real bias in the selection process: “I wonder, however, if we might consider a more open process of vetting nominees? For example, while a post doc here Sternberg was listed in an advertisement in the NY Times as a scientist at the Smithsonian Institution who did not believe in evolution. I saw that page and certainly would have spoken up had I known he was a prospective research associate.”45 Ferrari seemed to be suggesting that questioning evolution would disqualify a candidate for a position.

Share

Global Warming Fraud Uses Same Scientific Method as Evolution

The Internet is abuzz with the revelations that global warming proponents have been… lying, hiding data, and deceiving. The whole notion that ‘climate change’ is an emergency requiring drastic and immediate action now hangs in the balance. I was reminded of a post I wrote last year responding to a global warming skeptic comparing the global warming proponents to creationists. I said that in fact it was the other way around. Today, with ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ in particular being smacked around, it is good to revisit the issue.

Why?

Because the raw fact is that the ‘science’ behind global warming is just as shady as the ‘science’ behind macroevolution. Just as we see in this current case where scientists worked not merely to suppress data but also suppress viewpoints, trying to manipulate the peer review process to exclude dissenters and refusing to debate them in order to deprive them of credibility, so too in evolution.

This was exposed by Ben Stein’s Expelled, which I already discussed here.

But there are even more dramatic similarities between the ‘science’ behind evolutionary theory and global warming. It is my hope that when people see how reputable scientists tried to buffalo the entire world, hiding behind ‘consensus,’ and ridiculing those who think other wise- regarding global warming- that they will spot the same patterns of behavior regarding evolution… and approach it with more skepticism.

Share

Malthusians not just in New Zealand

Apparently a gent named Michael Laws, a politician in New Zealand, has advocated that the solution to child abuse and neglect is to pay the ‘underclass’ not to have children; this would be accomplished by $10,000 and sterilization.

This is a perfect example of the Malthusian Mind that I discussed in my Worldnetdaily.com column not too long ago, Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111412

He writes, “it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care.”

Critics repudiate his position later in the article, saying, “It’s hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who’s leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.”

Ha! I find it ‘hard to comprehend that an intelligent man’ who is Obama’s Science ‘czar’ (John Holdren) has made even worse suggestions!

The ‘mark’ of the Malthusian Mind is simply that they leap to eliminative solutions almost by instinct.

Share

Second Column Published on WND.com on Malthus

Today Worldnetdaily.com published a second column of mine. Title: Christians Beware the Malthusian Mind!

Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

Thomas Robert Malthus would have disagreed. The philosophical forerunner to Darwin, Malthus argued that there are limited resources, and competition for them is intense. When there are too many people competing for those resources, you have war, famine and a continual threat to civilization itself.

For Malthus, the pie is only so big: We must reduce the number of people who want a share of it.

Christianity embodies another solution: Make a bigger pie.

In Christianity, God takes a few loaves and feeds thousands with them. Entrance to heaven is not contingent on space available. Jesus came that we would have life, and life to the fullest. Not just for some, but all.

None of what follows is an argument for Christian indifference to the plight of other people. However, Christians should not advocate “solutions” that repress human liberty, dignity and freedom. For some reason, all of the Malthusian’s solutions do just that.

Read the whole column on Malthus and Malthusians.

Share

Christian Self-Interest the Key to Environmentalism?

I discovered today that a post a couple of weeks ago about Christians and the environment popped up on a Christian environmentalist blog. My post was ‘Shouldn’t Christians Care about the Environment?” and the brief response (if it was a response at all) was called ‘Self-interest makes Christians better ecologists.’

I actually couldn’t tell from the entry whether or not the blogger agreed or disagreed with my post. There is only one sentence: “Anthony suggests that the reason Christians make better ecologists is that they put people first.”

This isn’t much to go on but there was still something about it that compelled me to reply.

Share

Ridicule: Weapon of Choice for an Easy Victory

I think that this blog entry might be useful as a beginning of a series.  I should just post examples as I come across them.  It’s the kind of thing that you’ll notice more once you see a few examples. What I’ve noticed is that there are quite a few areas out there where arguments […]

Share

Does the planet need saving?

The planet isn’t going anywhere. The planet doesn’t care if it is polluted. In fact, ‘polluted’ is a term that is only meaningful relative to we human-folk. Indeed, ‘save the planet’ can, on the best construction, only mean something to the effect, “save the habitats that we consider important to life.” Presumably, with all the expressed fear that the ocean levels will rise, etc, what we mean by ‘life’ actually is ‘human life.’ [More…]

The slogan ‘save the planet’ is an attempt to make the endeavor bigger and broader than our own selfish interests so it is ironic that the statement is only meaningful in the context of our own selfish interests. After all, if ocean levels rise and swamp creatures (for example) lose their habitat other creatures- marine ones- will gain habitat.

Share

Madness! Pick up a rock and go to Jail

Will it now be illegal to go into your yard and pick up fallen sticks? You might be destroying the habitat of some legislator’s pet bug. Will you be taxed for enjoying the smells outside of bakeries? And why not? Pleasant scents are a luxury. Why should only rich people get to enjoy them? (If the logic there doesn’t make sense, its not supposed to). And why should you complain? Legislation probably got through that will help you in all sorts of never dreamed ways.

For example, in the name of proper sanitation and out of concern that the repetitive movement might give you carpal tunnel syndrome, they will now even wipe your butt for you. And its only right, since they have the health of the whole country to look for. You were probably doing it wrong. They’ll set it right. Of course, the wait time while you stand in line for a professional wiper will practically kill you. But its your ‘patriotic’ duty. Everyone must have some ‘skin in the game,’ know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge.

Seem absurd? Well heavens, it is only slightly more absurd then possibly going to jail and losing your possessions because you walk on Federal and PICK UP A ROCK.

Share

Literary Apologetics Key to Turning the Tide

Christians are not losing on facts, argument, logic, evidence, and reasoning. We are losing because we are not effectively transmitting the faith to the next generations and probably haven’t been doing so for some time. With more nonChristians in society, logically enough, this is manifested in pop culture. Fixing how we pass on the faith is one of the most important things Christians must do. With more informed and grounded Christians in pop culture, this will have its logical effect.

The second thing is we have to fight fire with fire. The author of the ChristianityToday article doesn’t make this point and I am at a loss as to why not. He does say, correctly:

“…the church needs to broaden its apologetics work to include serious analysis of and response to popular culture, now our most potent form of religious persuasion.

Share

Wisdom is Proved Right by Her Children; Evil Proved Evil by His

This weekend I read one of the scariest things I have heard coming out of the Global Warming crowd. That is saying something. I have documented elsewhere on this blog some other things they’ve said, like comparing denying man-made Global Warming to denying the holocaust. This is so disgusting I almost sat down and wrote a book exposing the various principles at work in it but stopped when I thought of at least one that is already written: C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man.

In summary, the London Times article references a certain Jonathon Porritt, a Global Warming burearucrat who reportedly says,

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.

Share
Pages: Prev 1 2