Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN (MISUSE)

EX. 20:7

Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
BOW DOWN OR WORSHIP ANY GRAVEN IMAGE (IDOL)

EX. 20:5

Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
MAKE FOR YOURSELF ANY GRAVEN IMAGE (IDOL)

EX. 20:4

Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
HAVE OTHER GODS BEFORE THE LORD

EX. 20:3

Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
EAT FLESH WITH THE LIFEBLOOD STILL IN IT

GEN. 9:4

Thou Shalt Not...

THOU SHALT NOT...
EAT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

GEN. 2:17

United States Presidents

1. George Washington (1789-1797)
• VP: John Adams [2]

2. John Adams (1797-1801)
• VP: Thomas Jefferson [3]
• Opponent: Thomas Jefferson [3]

3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
• VP: Aaron Burr; George Clinton
• Opponents: John Adams [2]; Charles Pinckney

4. James Madison (1809-1817)
• VP: Charles Pinckney; Elbridge Gerry
• Opponents: Charles Pinckney, George Clinton; DeWitt Clinton

5. James Monroe (1817-1825)
• VP: Daniel Tompkins
• Opponent: Rufus King

6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
• VP: John Calhoun
• Opponents: Andrew Jackson [7], Henry Clay, William Crawford

7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
• VP: John Calhoun; Martin Van Buren [8]
• Opponents: John Quincy Adams [6], Henry Clay, William Crawford; John Floyd, William Wirt

8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
• VP: Richard Johnson
• Opponents: William Henry Harrison [9], Hugh White, Daniel Webster, W.P. Mangum; Zachary Taylor [12], Lewis Cass

9. William Henry Harrison (1841)
• VP: John Tyler [10]
• Opponents: Martin Van Buren [8], Hugh White, Daniel Webster, W.P. Magnum

10. John Tyler (1841-1845) NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT
• VP: none


11. James Polk (1845-1849)
• VP: George Dallas
• Opponent: Henry Clay

12. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
• VP: Millard Fillmore [13]
• Opponents: Lewis Cass, Martin Van Buren [8]
13. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT
• VP: none


14. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
• VP: William King
• Opponent: Winfield Scott

15. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
• VP: John Breckinridge
• Opponents: John Fremont, Millard Fillmore [13]

16. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
• VP: Hannibal Hamlin; Andrew Johnson [18]
• Opponents: John Breckinridge, Stephen Douglas, John Bell; George McClellan

17. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT
• VP: none


18. Ulysses Grant (1869-1877)
• VP: Schuler Colfax; Henry Wilson
• Opponents: Horatio Seymour; Horace Greeley

19. Rutherford Hayes (1877-1881)
• VP: William Wheeler
• Opponent: Samuel Tilden

20. James Garfield (1881)
• VP: Chester Arthur [21]
• Opponent: Winfield Hancock

21. Chester Arthur (1881-1885) NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT
• VP: none


22. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889)
• VP: Thomas Hendricks
• Opponents: James Blaine; Benjamin Harrison [23]

23. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
• VP: Levi Morton
• Opponents: Grover Cleveland [22,24]; James Weaver

24. Grover Cleveland (1893-1897)
• VP: Adlai Stevenson
• Opponents: Benjamin Harrison [23], James Weaver
25. William McKinley (1897-1901)
• VP: Garret Hobart; Theodore Roosevelt [26]
• Opponent: William Jennings Bryan

26. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
• VP: Charles Fairbanks
• Opponent: Alton Parker

27. William Taft (1909-1913)
• VP: James Sherman
• Opponents: William Jennings Bryan; Woodrow Wilson [28], Theodore Roosevelt [26]

28. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
• VP: Thomas Marshall
• Opponents: Theodore Roosevelt [26], William Taft [27] ; Charles Hughes

29. Warren Harding (1921-1923)
• VP: Calvin Coolidge [30]
• Opponent: James Cox

30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
• VP: Charles Dawes
• Opponents: John Davis, Robert LaFollette

31. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
• VP: Charles Curtis
• Opponent: Al Smith

32. Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945)
• VP: John Garner; Henry Wallace, Harry Truman [33]
• Opponents: Herbert Hoover [31]; Alf Landon; Wendell Willkie; Thomas Dewey

33. Harry Truman (1945-1953)
• VP: Alben Barkley
• Opponents: Thomas Dewey, Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace

34. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)
• VP: Richard Nixon [37]
• Opponent: Adlai Stevenson

35. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
• VP: Lyndon Johnson [36]
• Opponents: Richard Nixon [37]

36. Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
• VP: Hubert Humphrey
• Opponent: Barry Goldwater
37. Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
• VP: Spiro Agnew; Gerald Ford [38]
• Opponents: Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace; George McGovern

38. Gerald Ford (1974-1977) NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT
• VP: Nelson Rockefeller


39. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
• VP: Walter Mondale
• Opponent: Gerald Ford [38]

40. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
• VP: George Bush [41]
• Opponents: Jimmy Carter [39], John Anderson; Walter Mondale

41. George Bush (1989-1993)
• VP: Dan Quayle
• Opponent: Michael Dukakis

42. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• VP: Al Gore
• Opponents: George Bush [41], Ross Perot; Bob Dole

43. George W. Bush (2001-2009)
• VP: Dick Cheney
• Opponents: Al Gore; John Kerry

44. TBD

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 1)

SERVE THE LIVING AND TRUE GOD

WELCOME THE MESSAGE WITH JOY GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

BECOME AN IMITATOR OF THE LORD

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 2)

THANK GOD CONTINUALLY

THE WORD OF GOD IS AT WORK IN YOU WHO BELIEVE

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 3)

RECEIVE STRENGTH FELLOW BELIEVERS

Words of Wisdom (from Ecclesiates 2)

WITHOUT GOD, WHO CAN EAT OR FIND ENJOYMENT?

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 10)

WHEN GOD IS ANGRY, THE EARTH TREMBLES

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 11)

OBEY THE LORD

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 17)

THE LORD IS THE SPRING OF LIVING WATER

SITTING BEFORE GOD'S THRONE IS OUR PLACE OF SANCTUARY

BLESSED IS THE MAN WHO TRUSTS IN THE LORD

Words of Wisdom (from James 1)

KEEP YOUR EYES ON JESUS!

FEED FAITH, STARVE DOUBT

GOD KNOWS WHAT TO GIVE (A GIFT) AND HOW TO GIVE IT

POVERTY IS A TRIAL

TRIALS ARE FROM GOD; TEMPTATIONS ARE FROM SATAN

Words of Wisdom (from James 2)

FAITH + DEEDS = LIFE

GENUNINE FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS WILL PROVIDE GOOD DEEDS

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 2)

WALK FAITHFULLY BEFORE THE LORD

WALK IN GOD'S WAYS

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 8)

CELEBRATE BEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD!

BE FULLY COMMITTED TO THE LORD!

KNEEL BEFORE THE LORD AND SPREAD YOUR HANDS OUT TOWARD HEAVEN

MAY THE LORD NEVER LEAVE YOU OR FORSAKE YOU

FEAR THE LORD, FOR HE KNOWS YOUR HEART AND WILL DISCIPLINE YOU IN HIS WISDOM

BLESSED BE THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 9)

BE FULL OF JOY AND HAVE A GLAD HEART

WALK BEFORE THE LORD WITH INTEGRITY OF HEART AND UPRIGHTNESS

"Recipe For Life (For Women)"

RECIPE FOR LIFE

FOR WOMEN

"How sweet are thy words unto my taste!"
Psalm 119:103

"Recipe for Life:

Start with a loaf of joy.
Add a dash of kindness.
Season with a pinch of salt
to live as the salt of the
earth.

Sprinkle liberally with Jesus'
love. Add a handful of
forgiveness.

Cover with peace, and
always serve on a bed of
faith, nestled in a platter
of salvation.


Dearest Heavenly Father,
Your words are sweet, sweeter
than honey. They assure me
of your forgiveness and of your
love for me in the cross of my
Savior, Jesus. Your promises
are true for me forever.

Thank your, Lord.
Amen.

(www.CTAinc.com)

notes from Creation Seminar part 5 (session 1)

Creation Seminar: Part 5
May 4, 2008

The Dangers of Evolution (Part 1) [0:00 – :]

Is Evolution a bad philosophy?
This seminar is also called “Evolution: Satan’s Religion to Destroy Humanity” and “Evolution’s Relationship to Racism, Communism, Nazism, and the New World Order”
The purpose of these seminars to is strengthen your faith in the Word of God
The Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate
One reason evolution is dangerous is because it removes all morality (we don’t want God or anyone telling us that we can’t commit adultery, etc.)
Why did Stalin order the execution of 14,700 Polish POW officers? “Prisoners of War” are supposed to be protected by the Geneva Convention.
Why did Hitler order the execution of at least 6 million Jews?
Why did Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979, execute over a third of the entire Cambodian population?
Why were Australian aborigines treated like animals and thousands killed in the 1800’s?
Why did Kip Kinkle kill his parents and fellow students at Thurston High School in 1998?
There have been 29 school shootings in the U.S. since 1996 (as of 2005)
Evolution is not just dumb, it’s dangerous! Evolution removes all morality. Evolution says “there is no right or wrong” – might becomes right.
John 8:32
Satan has a plan and God has a plan
God’s plan:
1. Fill his Creation with people,
2. Obey His laws,
3. Live in peace,
4. Use the preaching of his Word to win souls, and
5. Go to live forever with him in heaven
Satan’s plan:
1. Reduce the human population to zero (he hates humanity!)
Cont. – watch the DVD!

"Absence of scientific rigour in environmentalist ideology"

Absence of scientific rigour in environmentalist ideology

The first programme in the series presents arguments that global warming is a myth and that the environment in the developed world is improving. Environmentalists hanker after a pre-industrial idyll, but conditions in the Third World
are harsh and millions die every year because of unclean water and smoke from indoor fires.

The Greens oppose major development projects, but many local people want the electricity and clean water they will bring. Many resent the interference and hypocrisy of Western environmentalists, who have all the benefits and comforts
of industrialisation.

The programme hears both from those who criticise the environmental movement and from the Greens themselves.

Most people in the Third World lack the basic amenities of modern life that we in the West take for granted: clean drinking water and a reliable supply of electricity. And Third World governments are eager to industrialise in order to
catch up with the West. But environmentalists say that if they do this, the future of the planet will be imperilled.

"If everybody in the world consumed like the British, the Europeans or the Americans," says Tony Juniper, Campaigns Manager for Friends of the Earth, "then we'd need about eight planets to meet people's needs. And it would still be
unsustainable."

In the name of preserving nature, environmentalists have challenged the old ideas of progress and economic development. But in doing so, they have been accused of needlessly consigning millions of people in the Third World to poverty and early death.

The Shadow Of The Enlightenment

The attempt by man to understand and to conquer nature was at the heart of Enlightenment thinking. A scientific, rational understanding of the physical world was a means of changing nature to serve our needs and desires better. But
these Enlightenment ideas of rationalism and progress have been called into question by environmentalists. They have led, they say, to the monstrous creation of modern industrial life, with its factories and cars, chemicals and fumes.

"People seem to have accepted the view that they should feel guilty about man's impositions on nature, about progress and technological improvement," says Steve Hayward of the Pacific Research Centre. "Even science today is somewhat
suspect in the public mind. I think this is a result of the pervasive environmental philosophy that there's a distinction between man and nature, and that what man does is bad and what nature does is good."

Gregg Easterbrook, author of A Moment on the Earth, a critique of environmental thinking, agrees. He argues that the idealisation of nature common in the environmental movement is a modern luxury that has, paradoxically, been made
possible by development. "Most of our ancestors spent their lives struggling to grow food, to protect themselves against disease and the elements," he says. "They found nature did not know best. Nature was a hostile force for them."

The Power Of The Greens

Environmentalists often depict themselves as folk heroes and rebels, fighting a mighty anti-Green establishment. But the Green movement itself has become a powerful political force, which dominates much of Western thinking. "It's said
they control the Clinton administration," says Senator Larry Craig.

Green Popularity

The environmentalist movement today is rich and powerful: the top 12 Green organisations in the US alone have an annual turnover of just under a billion dollars. In the UK, four million people are members of Green organisations —
that's more than are members of all the other political organisations put together.

Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming

Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara
Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century,
but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s,led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When
proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in
certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide — almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.

Clearing The Air: Growth, Technology And Pollution

The industrial First World represents the Greens' worst nightmare. More economic growth, they say, can only mean more pollution and environmental degradation. But others argue that, on the contrary, over the past half century the environment in the advanced industrial world has actually improved.

"Air pollution has been falling in modern industrialised countries for the last 40 years," says Steve Hayward. "And it's been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has
the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 years — and that's at a time when the area's population has doubled and its economy has tripled."

In the United States as a whole, over the past quarter of a century, the population has increased by 30 per cent, while the number of cars and the size of the economy has nearly doubled. And yet, during the same period, emissions of the
six main air pollutants have decreased by 30 per cent. In addition, says Gregg Easterbrook, Americans have stopped pumping waste water from cities into lakes and streams, stopped dumping untreated sewage in the sea and toxic wastes
on land, and eliminated the use of CFCs.

"Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead," adds Steve Hayward. "Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years."

Western cities such as London are cleaner today than they have been for centuries. In the mid 1900s, before cars were even invented, air and water quality was so poor that many thousands of people died each year from typhus and Tuberculosis.

Supporters of economic development don't just argue that the industrial world is getting cleaner, they also say that industrial progress has transformed our lives for the better. "We live longer, we are healthier, we are better educated,
we know ourselves better and we are much more able to take control over our destiny than any other time in the past," says Dr Frank Furedi, author of the book Population and Development. "Yes, industrialisation is often exploitative,
often leads to the uprooting of people. But at the same time it adds to human civilisation and means progress for all."

The pre-industrial fantasy

But the Greens insist we must turn our backs on these 'outdated' ideas of economic and industrial progress. If we are to avoid an environmental catastrophe, they say, we must go back to living in harmony with nature. And to do this we must learn from pre-industrial tribal societies in the Third World.

40 per cent of the world's population still uses either wood or dung for fuel instead of electricity. But the indoor pollution from this is deadly, especially for women and children who spend most time in the home. According to the World Health Organisation, 5 million infants die every year in the Third World from respiratory diseases caused by breathing indoor smoke and rural smog.

Basic pollution of this kind kills far more people than all First World environmental problems combined. One and a half billion people in the Third World sufferair quality that is recognised by the World Health Organisation as
'dangerously unsafe', a level of pollution almost unknown in the Western world.

Dr Anil Patel is responsible for the health care of more than 200 villages in Gujarat, in north-west India. The vast majority of medical problems he encounters have been brought on by environmental causes. But the environmental problems he is concerned with come not from modern industry but rather from the lack of modern luxuries such as electricity and clean water.

"Clean water is completely out of question," says Dr Patel. "The water they get is untreated. Most of the time it is contaminated with human faeces and cattle faeces, and the ultimate result is that there are all sorts of water-borne diseases."

Water-borne diseases in the Third World have not been caused by modern industry. On the contrary, the only way to get rid of them is with modern water-cleaning facilities— the kind we take for granted in the West.

In the Third World, 250 million people are infected each year by water-borne diseases, mostly dysentery. Patients suffer severe stomach cramps, chronic diarrhoea and various other disorders such as skin disease, and each year 10 million of them die. The World Health Organisation estimated that in 1996 3.9 million children under the age of five died from diseases communicated by impure drinking water, mostly diarrhoea.

"Death from diarrhoea has been unheard of in the Western world in the past two generations," says Gregg Easterbrook. "That 3.9 million children dead in the developing world last year exceeds all deaths at all ages from all causes in the
United States and the European Union combined. And yet we endlessly speak of water purity in the West as an issue."

The idealisation by Greens of life in the Third World is resented by many people there. "I see in this a serious problem of hypocrisy, and if not hypocrisy, a gross insensitivity," says Dr Patel.

According to the World Health Organisation, life expectancy for people in the Third World is 20 years less than our own. In the poorest areas they live 35 years less.

Damning development: the Greens and the Narmada project

People in India are struggling to emerge from the backward condition in which they find themselves. The Indian government is trying to build a hydroelectric dam on the Narmada river to provide clean water and the electricity which is vital for industrial progress. It will submerge 350 square kilometres of land and provide enough electricity to supply almost 5,000 villages in north-west India. It will provide clean drinking water for 30 million people and it will be an enormous boost for economic and industrial growth.

Not everyone is keen, however. Lisa Jordan is a director of The Bank Information Centre, an environmentalist group which tries to stop the World Bank from funding large-scale development projects in the Third World that are deemed environmentally unfriendly. She is keen to preserve traditional tribal life. "This is genocide of tribal people who have lived in the forests that are being drowned for centuries. They're one of the oldest living populations on this earth that have been documented. These are the cultures that pay because of a large dam being developed to pipe water to a larger agriculture system, to provide electricity, to provide the dream."

But locals are not so keen on preserving things as they are. "Instead of saying that we want this particular life to be encased like a museum, we must say that we want progress," one woman told Against Nature. "We want development of a particular kind and therefore we need larger dams."

Environmentalists are worried about the damage the dam will do to wildlife in the area, but supporters of the dam are equally appalled that the environmentalists are so concerned with preserving bio-diversity at the expense of human development.

"What exactly is the value of all this bio-diversity?" asks Wilfred Beckerman. "This idea that you have to preserve every scrap of nature, even though destroying it might confer enormous benefits on people whose standard of living and quality of life is so low as to be unimaginable for the vast majority of people in the Western world, I think is scandalous. I just get very angry when I hear this sort of thing. Whose side are these people on?"

As it happens, no pristine forest will be destroyed by the Narmada dam and the only endangered species to be affected is a colony of sloth bears, for which the Indian government is building a wildlife reserve nearby.

But the Greens say they aren't just concerned about the natural destruction of the dam. They point to the number of tribal people who will have to be resettled elsewhere. Brent Blackwelder, chairman of Friends of the Earth US, says
more than 100,000 people will be uprooted from their homes. But according to the Indian government and the World Bank, the project will displace 70,000 people, who will be given farmland elsewhere with the benefits of roads, schools, electricity and clean water.

Critics of the Greens say environmentalists themselves are prepared to push tribal people off their land to make way for wild animals. Nature reserves founded in India by the World Wildlife Fund have displaced at least 25,000 people simply to make way for tigers.

Five years ago Dr Patel welcomed environmentalists' concern about tribal people and was even persuaded by the Greens to campaign against the dam. Today, he believes the real concern of environmentalists is to block progress. He is now a fervent supporter of the dam and accuses the Greens of seeming to care more about animals than people.

Many environmentalists argue that if people in the Third World want electricity, they should use solar power or wind power. But not only would solar and wind power fail to meet the need for clean water, environmentalists themselves admit that they would be fantastically more expensive. To produce the same amount of electricity as the Narmada dam using wind power would cost at least six times as much. Using solar power would cost more than seven times as much— and even then it is doubtful that it could be done. The Narmada dam will produce 400 times as much electricity as the largest solar panel installation currently in existence.

Local Indians such as Dr Patel dismiss all the Green arguments against the dam, saying that the dam will change things, but there can be no development without change.

Green pressure on the World Bank has led to funding for the Narmada dam being withdrawn. Consequently, work on the dam, which began in the early 60s, has all but stopped. Most environmentalists believe it will never be completed.

In addition, leading environmentalists have estimated that they have effectively blocked around 300 hydro-electric dams in the Third World, denying many millions of poor people the benefits of electricity and clean water.

Tom Blinkhorn of the World Bank thinks many people in the West who contribute to environmental organisations don't realise the implications. "What they don't see is the tremendous poverty that exists in other parts of the world, and that
if we are going to help people address that poverty, we need to do it through large dams and activities that many organisations in the Green movement are opposed to. I think a lot of the constituency for Green groups simply do not know about the problems in the Third World."

Conservation and conservatism

There have been many attempts in the past to block social and economic progress. But few have been as successful as today's environmentalist movement, which uses the threat of a global ecological crisis to override the wishes of those people who most need the benefits of progress. And it's not only dams that the Greens campaign against.

"Western environmentalist sentiment has been successful ...in blocking a whole range of industrial facilities," says Gregg Easterbrook. "Factories, roads, logging— even well-regulated logging— have been vehemently opposed."

Steve Hayward argues that it's immoral for rich environmentalists to impose their ideology on Third World countries, where people are poor and disease is rampant. "The best thing that could happen to those countries is to industrialise
rapidly ... so they have the resources not only to be healthier but also to protect their environment. To stand in the way of that is wrong and dangerous in my mind." After all, adds Gregg Easterbrook, we became affluent through industrialisation and exploiting our resources.

Greens are often portrayed as left-wing radicals, battling against a backward-looking establishment. But they are in fact part of a long tradition of conservatism that idealises nature and the past. These conservative instincts motivated 19thcentury figures such as Nietzsche and Wagner, and movements such as the Romantics, who were horrified by England's 'dark satanic mills' (as William Blake described them) and dreamt of returning to a mythical past of medieval knights and maidens, and even the Boy Scout movement, which in its origins combined a mystical affinity with nature, Right-wing nationalism and a hatred of degenerate modern life.

"What we today call 'environmentalism' is ... based on a fear of change," says Frank Furedi. "It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it."

Fascism, animal rights and human rights

The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.

"They had essentially a biological view of society," Dr Furedi continues. "They regarded society as an organism to which you were rooted through blood ties ... and felt much more comfortable with what they perceived to be natural than what were the products of human creativity. I think that's one of the reasons why [Hitler] had this celebration of the animal kingdom, the celebration of wildlife."

The historian Dr Mark Almond, of Oriel College, Oxford, goes further. "Goering made ferocious blood curdling speeches saying that people who were cruel to animals, including scientists who did research on them, would be put in concentration camps," he says. "This was perversely part of the logic which could at the same time put people into concentration camps, on whom they experimented."

Frank Furedi agrees. "History shows us is that whenever people begin to treat animals like human beings, it's only a smell step away from treating human beings like animals. And that seems to me the logical outcome of this nostalgic,
sentimental approach towards animal rights."

A Western agenda

Environmentalists today have been accused of effectively imposing their views on the Third World, and causing immense suffering in the process.

"The new focus on environmental issues too often has the consequence of turning societies into theme parks," argues Frank Furedi. "They are very attractive for the voyeuristic Western imagination, but actually doom people in those societies to a life of poverty."

"And it seems to me that there is no accountability here. It's not the people of Africa and Asia or Latin America thathave demanded environmental policies; these are policies that are being pushed by everybody in the West, from the World Bank to Green organisations. Who gave them the authority? By what moral right do they dictate the terms of how these societies can develop and realise their potential for the future?"

Gregg Easterbrook emphasises the hypocrisy of attitudes in the West: "It's still possible in affluent circles in the United States or Europe to see people sitting in an air-conditioned room eating free-range chicken and sipping Chablis, talking
amongst themselves about how farmers in Africa shouldn't have tractors, because it might disrupt the soil, or how peasants in India shouldn't be allowed to have hydroelectric power, because it's not appropriate to their culture.... What would really be immoral is if we insisted on keeping material affluence for ourselves and try to deny it to the billions of others in the world who want and deserve exactly the same thing."

Our attitude to the Third World, as Frank Furedi puts it, is that "... your societies are doomed to be poor-houses for the rest of the world. It purports to be ever so radical and ever so sensitive, but what it does is it sets a Western agenda on the rest of the world. It's as intrusive today as imperialism was in the 19th century. "

"The problem isn't that we have so much that we're squandering resources, the real problem is that most people do not have access to even the most basic needs of everyday life. The real problem is that they're denied good education and
good health. Therefore, the answer does not lie in going backwards and trying to be anti-technological, close down factories and not build roads.... Only through the appliance of science and technology can people's aspirations be realised even at the most elementary level."

People today face many difficulties in the First World as well as the Third: poverty and squalor, ignorance and disease. But the battle against these evils cannot be won by returning to nature or some mythical past. Instead, we must go forwards to a better future with confidence in our ability to understand and change the world.

"Myths of Global Warming"

Myths of Global Warming

The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to finalizing
a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding, internationally
enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon
dioxide (CO
). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is
significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate
government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that
humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct,
delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference
in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do
little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off
action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better
technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound. Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level
temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate
measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.]
Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within
the natural range of known temperature variation. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries -a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that
humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting
that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate
conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]
Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the
environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate
change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief
underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be
catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action. However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:

Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per
year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of
0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic
Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global
warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of
environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased
hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations
organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming,
reject these beliefs. Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years -far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of
increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period. Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of
hurricanes. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the
unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward
trend. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant
increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms. Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations. What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global
warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's early plant life lived in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears
of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and
ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational
policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.

This Brief Analysis was prepared by H. Sterling Burnett, environmental policy
analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"The global warming myth and its selfish defenders"

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders

by John A. Baden, Ph.D. and Tim O’Brien

Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming
book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically
complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its
emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the
discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact
science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of
the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global
warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-
induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical
relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels
of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data
from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling
trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly
less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see
temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous
unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect
global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be
a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by
reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase
precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase
the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel
caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13,
1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any
significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert
Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude
that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature
increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be
most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO.
Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields
by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less
water by reducing evapotranspiration -water evaporating after it is released from
plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become
less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public
believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive
political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of
widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans
engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by
hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects
everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For
those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming
provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global
warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global
warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming
causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of
money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses.
Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests,
they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the
most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current
understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs
or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they
will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few
years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to
more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay
will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should
consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being
manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into
public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

"Could The 'Global Warming' Myth Be Collapsing?"

Could The “Global Warming” Myth Be Collapsing?

by American Conservative Daily

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS
certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of
broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr.
William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a
political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

In fact Ms. Cullen is BACK and defending her stance!

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html

Recall she made this statement “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.” This statement is obvious in that in taken in context with her entire statement that if you do not think manmade Global Warming/Climate Change is happening then you should not get certified as a meteorologist. But now
she claims that is not the case. “I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.”

Listen Comrade Cullen. We ain’t all stoopid rednecks out hear ya no.

Some of us are pretty smart and it seems to me that you got a little more attention for your cockamamie ideas than you could handle.

Or as one commenter (Hank Spivey) said “The point of my post was never to stifle discussion…Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

A few weeks ago, you said: If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on - air and say [followed by factual inaccuracies].

Note the use of the word “allowing” and the phrase “to go on-air,” an obvious reference to “stifle discussion.”

At least pick a position and stick with it instead of trying to spin your way out. Which truth is today’s truth? I’m sure the self appointed experts will explain it all to me.”

People like Comrade Cullen are all about “stifling discussion” and talking about how stupid people that don’t agree with her must be … that is until it is pointed out that she doesn’t even know that hurricanes DO rotate clockwise when they are in the southern hemisphere!

These loons are losing it. Their constant cherry picking of data and making of blatantly false statements is becoming more and more evident and their house of cards will eventually collapse.