Thursday, June 08, 2017

Global Warming. 80 Graphs, 58 Peer Reviewed Papers Say "No"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Fox's Chris Wallace asked Al Gore last Sunday what had happened to the apocalyptic predictions he made in his 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that stated, "Unless the world took drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years."

Gore found the question... well, inconvenient.

Gore's explanation was predictable.

This week the world is looking at 80 graphs and 58 peer-reviewed papers from highly respected scientists that make it even more inconvenient for those who continue to make these false predictions.

The mainstream media, for the most part, is pretending the data doesn't exist.


The so-called "massive Consensus" on global warming, a.k.a., climate change, appears to be a massive lie.

There are 80 graphs and 58 peer-reviewed papers published in 2017 that support the fact that President Trump made the right decision to pull out of the Paris Accord last week.

The Accord is actually a "Treaty" that requires congressional approval, but Obama skipped that part because of the "urgency" of the matter.

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming, known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), is not at all as it has been presented to us and the rest of the world.

All these different experts from around the world---China, Russia, Canada, the US, Italy, etc.---have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different time scales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story being presented to our kids in the classroom and all of us through the media.

Dozens of reputable scientists have contributed to data represented in the 80 graphs and 58 peer-reviewed papers published last year.

For instance, collaborated data shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today.

Kenneth Richards has assembled some of the 80 charts here. Take a moment and review them.

On January 25, 2006, former Vice President Al Gore was at the Sundance Film Festival promoting his new documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

CBS and AP both covered the event.

Gore presented what he called a "true planetary crises" giving the U.S. 10 years in which to reverse the effects of man created carbon on the earth---otherwise "we will reach the point of no return."

He said we must come up with a "coherent and really strong response, and that's what I'm devoting myself to."

Satellite data shows Gore's prediction was false.

Gore has also predicted that the summer Arctic ice in the North Pole would completely disappear by 2013.

Gore has also said publicly that Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa would lose its snow pack by 2016. Africa's highest peak still retains its snow pack.

Fox News' Chris Wallace reminded Gore of these statements last Sunday, asking, "Weren't you wrong?"

Gore replied, "No, well, we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time they've stabilized and started to decline. So some of the responses for the last 10 years have helped, but unfortunately and regrettably a lot of serious damage has been done."

He said the worlds will now only face "some" of the many consequences he once warned about.

I know some who read this daily commentary strongly disagree with me on this issue, but honestly, the mounting evidence and data does not support Al Gore's message, or that of the activist scientists.

Paul Delingpole, in his book, "Watermelons" presents a well documented account of how a handful of political activist "green house" scientists have engineered the world's biggest, most destructive, and most expensive mass hysteria in the history of the world. One which threatens the very fabric of Western civilization.

The author carefully documents the money trail of Al Gore and others who are making hundreds of millions of dollars by advancing this urgent message of impending doom.

He shows how this extreme environmentalism is actually killing the planet, by destroying the economy and stealing our children's future. I recommend you read it.

And finally, the Associated Press is reporting that "With Donald Trump pulling the US out of the Paris climate accord, China and California signed an agreement Tuesday to work together on reducing emissions."

AP says California Governor Jerry Brown says, "Disaster still looms and we've got to make the turn."

AP also notes, "Like the Paris accord, the deals are nonbinding." A pretend deal.

Theologian and Professor Dr. Ron Nash, a friend of mine from the past, has written extensively on cultural issues from a biblical perspective.

He wrote, "The Case Against Radical Environmentalism" several years ago, however, his insights may be more poignant today then when they were first published.

Nash says, "Radical environmentalism is not about good stewardship or conservation; it's about using the environment issue for ulterior religious or political reasons. More often than not, radical environmentalists base their convictions upon bad or unsupported scientific claims."

He identifies the radical environmental movement as:

1. The Greens
2. The Deep Ecologists
3. The Animal Rights Movement

The group known as the "Greens" is the most politically sophisticated in hiding their true agenda from the public. He says, "This movement has become the new home for hard-line socialists who want coercive government to function as the mechanism for destroying private property rights." This is why they are sometimes called the "Watermelon environmentalists"---green on the outside, red on the inside.

If you need clarity on the issue of extreme environmentalism and how that squares---or does not square with the Bible, take a few minutes and read it.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.


3 comments:

  1. Dr Ron Nash is essentially correct in stating that radical environmentalism is not about stewardship or environment. Having spent 50 years in stewardship employment, I know a little about the subject. When Gore first came to national attention, I told all my contacts that it wasn't about global warming, it was in fact a statement that there is no God, mankind alone is in control of planet earth. So many examples of the deception! Spotted owl would be wiped out if old growth forests were not preserved. Adams Co had to delay repair on a bridge for 6 months because of a spotted owl nest under the deck. WSU verified identity of bird. NO forests in Adams County, old growth or otherwise. Spotted owl was just a pawn. The objective was to destroy the logging industry and economy. Global warming is just a pawn.God is in control of earth, not man. Man is mandated to be good stewards and leave the land in equal or better shape than the generation inherited. A book published in the early 20th century called the rise and fall of nations through 7000 years pointed out that all national collapses ultimately came down to poor stewardship of natural resources. Environmentalists seem to want to destroy economies, yet ignore the reality that a robust economy is what makes environmental protection possible. A nation of starving people have little time for environmental issues. AL Gores hype is hard to swallow in view of his 30000 a yr energy bill on personal home (2006). Tells me his concern was anything but stewardship or environment. A decade ago a Russian scientist showed that at the outside man's contribution to (rightfully called climate change - not global warming), was 9%. Ie 91% + is out of man's control. God is real and He IS in control. Mankind's arrogance is just arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a real problem when someone is making so much money promoting their hype. If Al Gore was sooo concerned why doesn't he volunteer his time or give all the money he is making to support the cause. Very questionable in my estimation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I heard about a man who had a pit in his garage so he could easily work on the underside of his car, but word got around and the police showed up and he had to have it filled in. Too much government I think, but one of the main reasons for not having a pit is because so many gasses and vapors like fuel and CO2 settle in the lower areas...so how is CO2 a problem if it's a heavier gas or vapor? Isn't it going to settle in the lower places and not collect high in the atmosphere? I'm no scientist, but I often wondered about this. All I know is it makes the trees healthy, the because they need CO2 like we need oxygen, and they produce oxygen.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.