By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.
For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.
But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”
Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.
They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.
Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.
As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.
Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.
“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”
And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.
Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.
Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.
The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.
The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.
The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.
It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”
The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.
The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?
We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.
We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.
Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.
Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.
Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.
That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.
Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!
A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.
AlLI can say is that I think Monckton spoils his excellent critiques of the CAGW alarmists inscientific nonsense by trying to couple science and religion. His Roman Catholic religion may mean much to him but there are myriads of skeptics for which this is not the case. This in no way dimishes our concern that dishonesty i\on science undemrines the supposed scienec from the inside. Some skeptics are Catholics, some adhere to other branches of the Christian religion, some are theists in other ways, some are deists, some are atheists, some are agnostics, and many have no religios affiliation.
The thing that binds us all together is an unswerving commitment to truth and openenss on the part of scientists.
The hypotheis of CO2 caussed dangerous warming is quite simply a terrible and costly mistke. Al Gore’s inconvenient truth is nothing other than an inconvenient blunder. If the belivers had welcomed skeptics instead of trying to ostracise them we would have arrived at the truth a long time.ago. Nature has been kind enough to highlight the ineptness of the computer models and the sooner this is more widely accepted the better.
Warren is the same guy as ‘Michael the Realist’ who appeared on Jo Nova recently, the same tedious pretentious mutterings, mostly modelled on the Global Warming Cult’s tired old mantras, or arguing black is white.
Ignore him, let him go back to his lonely little fantasy world.
Please, Daniel, in the spirit of the season can we address this at a later date?
I would at that time be glad to engage on this and related subjects.
Merry Christmas.
.
Warren;
You missed my point, and I missed yours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn’t miss your point at all. Nice attempt at a face saving retreat though.
A Christmas Present for Warren who really, really needs it.
You’ll have to buy it for yourself to make up for all your silly posts in this thread.
http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Skeptic-Comprehensive-Earths-Climate/dp/0984782915/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387988873&sr=1-1&keywords=the+inconvenient+skeptic
Hence, the existence of the animal kingdom; man is in the predicament of bridging a gap between two ‘worlds’, for why do we feel such pain or experience the exuberance of beauty in art and other works on occasion? Pure animals never experience such joy … (re: animals – happy, yes, joy is another thing.)
Merry Christmas.
.
Monckton of Brenchley says: December 25, 2013 at 5:20 am
My main point was that true religion, however inadequately and imperfectly, insists upon morality and, therefore, intellectual honesty.
_____________________________________________
Christian morality? You do jest, surely. The bible says:
kill anyone not listening to priests. Deut 13:5
kill homosexuals. Levit 20:13
kill anyone who hits their father. Lev 21:15
kill followers of other religions. Ex 22:19
kill everyone in a town, if one person worships another god. Deu 13:13-19
kill brides who are not virgins. Deu 22:20-21
Is that the sort of morality you want in Western society? I would hope that most of us have moved on from that sort of Dark Age morality, because we now have man’s superior secular morality.
ralph
@warren,
You clearly don’t understand feedback, you just parrot what you think you understand from a book. Let’s look at some negative feedbacks.
1. the suns rays hit the ground, the ground heats up, the ground radiates most of that heat back to space through the IR transparent spectrum region of the atmosphere, the radiation is proportional to the cube of the temperature of the surface, a classic negative feedback.
2. The surface heats up from the sun, depending on the temperature of the surface the rate of evaporation increases, evaporation consumes 2250 Kj of energy per kg of water evaporated – negative feedback.
3. the heat of the surface rises, Ice at the poles melts, 333Kj of energy is absorbed per Kg of ice melting – negative feedback.
I could go on, but I wont.
Negative feedbacks don’t subtract, they divide, so while the direct effect of CO2 is say 1 degree, the negative feedbacks absorb or otherwise remove 80 percent of that, they divide it by 5. leaving 0.2 degrees. The IPCC and your book though say the Net effect feedback rather than dividing by 5 multiplies by 3. To get to the IPCC and your books number after negative feedbacks are applied requires a positive feedback overriding the negative feedbacks in play, and a further multiple of 3. 3×5 is 15, so to meet the IPCC and your books overall gain of 3 there needs to exist exist positive feedbacks of 15, that’s a loop gain of 0.95, which is near as impossible.
Being an engineer I know lots about feedback. it gets even more complicated than this, but that’s the basics.
Your precautionary argument is also poor. We are currently pulling out of a little ice age which occured in the 1800s. That point was about 0.7 degrees, below current. The little ice age, caused hunger, disease and death that killed half the population of Europe. We are a mere 0.7 degrees away from that. More CO2 and warmth increases our food supply, while less CO2 and warmth reduces it, till in conditions like the LIA crops fail, further you would take away the very tool humans use to survive cold, – reliable energy. In which direction lies safety, clearly the precautionary principle tells us that we must err on the warm side, and we must be prepared for similar conditions to that already experienced in the LIA in the future with a reliable, çheap energy supply.
You did not comment on my other points demonstrating the inconsistency of IPCC sensitivity estimates to historical facts.
Warren, you are at a crossroad, you can either blindly follow your faith in others, or you can become a responsible environmentalist by checking the facts for yourself and making up your own mind, issue by issue, greens lie to you just like everyone else in order to get their own way. I don’t ask for your belief, I ask only that you be critical and check the math for yourself. If you can’t or won’t then I am sorry, for you will remain ignorant.
davidmhoffer, I agree with your considered position, but honestly, climate models don’t reproduce the past, either. They are parameterized to fit past trend lines. Model outputs of past trends aren’t hindcasts. They’re just tendentious reproductions.
Models adjusted to reproduce past temperatures can’t reproduce past precipitation. Models adjusted to reproduce past precipitation can’t reproduce past temperature. Their partitioning of internal energy through the climate modes is wrong. They don’t predict a thing about climate, past or future. They just have enough degrees of freedom to be adjusted into producing any trend line one targets. Presented to the naïve, willful and otherwise, the lines become proof.
Warren, I suggest instead of worrying about the models, that you study the history of the consensus of climate change.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
And here is some koranic morality for you:
Muslims must fight, even if they don’t like it. Koran 2:216
Kill kuffer unbelievers wherever you find them. Koran 4:19
Strike off the heads of the kuffer believers, and the tips of their fingers. Koran 8:12
Kuffer unbelievers are the lowest animals. Koran 8:55
Make war on the kuffer unbelievers. Koran 9:14
Fight the kuffer unbelievers until they pay the jizya tax on unbelievers. Koran 9:29
Muslims, if you do not go to war, god will punish you. Koran 9:39
The unbeliever will burn in hell. Koran 14:29
God has prepared a fire for kuffer unbelievers, that will surround them like a tent. When they cry out, they will be showered with molten brass. Koran 18:29
Garments of fire have been prepared for the kuffer unbelievers. Boiling water will be poured over their heads to melt their skin and their guts, and they shall be lashed with rods of hooked iron. Koran 22:19
And this is not cherry-picking, as there are about 500 verses like this in the Koran. I can post a full list, if you will allow it.
So, is this the morality we want in the 21st century? Or are organised religions like this going to take us back to the Dark Ages? Frankly, we are much better off, now that religion has been put back in its box. The danger we face, is the resurgence of fundamentalists who are determined to use verses like those above to create mayhem on the streets of the West.
Ralph
Warren, what does the data say about increased water vapor? Do observations match the modeled increase in water vapor? And is it relative or absolute water vapor that increases with more re-radiated LW infrared?
glenncz says: December 25, 2013 at 8:52 am
That is an interesting Collection of past Scientific Opinions, it would be interesting to see it brought up to date. For much more of the same you want to have a look through Steve Goddard’s Real Science archives, he has collected hundreds of old newspaper Weather cuttings and Scientific pronunciations.
@Silver Ralph
You are quoting from the old testament. In the times of the old testament people did not know what God is really like.
To know what God looks like, you could look in the New Testament or here:
http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc
or start here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
1) on the notion that science is apparently without error and that religious thinking is backward thinking full of errors.
One of the biggest errors in human history was slavery and although sometimes condoned or allowed by the various religions in the past,
slavery was never taught or instituted as a way of life by any particular religion. Some simple research, for example in American history,
will show that it was pure economics that was the root cause of the error of slavery.
Note that it was initially (mainly) Christian men and women both in England and the USA that stood up against slavery and ultimately succeeded in getting it abolished.
The eugenic laws that Hitler put into place in Germany in the forties were based on “science”. It allowed the Germans to discriminate against and even terminate the lives of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, even paraplegics. Will we ever forget Joseph Mengele and his experiments? During the period before the war, Hendrik Verwoerd studied this nonsense in Germany and as a result we in South Africa got stuck here with the error of apartheid.
Again it was the Christians in the USA, Canada, Australia and elsewhere in the world who stood up against Hitler and they prayed and asked their governments to bring in armies to fight Hitler.Many of them sacrificed their own lives so we might be free.
Can I ask you: in the above simple examples of human error: was it not economics and pseudo psychology that were the culprits of the mess and was not Christianity instrumental in bringing an end to these horrors?
2) on the notion that current science makes few errors
You think or assumes that because science is based on facts, it should always be without error or less error, especially in modern time.
One example I can give of a big mess that we have at the moment caused by science is nuclear energy. It seems there are still those who still believe there is nothing wrong with it. But don’t ask any of them who still sing the praises of nuclear energy to go and volunteer to clean up the mess, either in Chernobyl or Fukushima. We are still sitting with two enormous problems there.
Another debacle of science gone completely wrong, is the issue of global warming……….namely, there is no man made global warming!
I had to find that out for myself, after studying the relevant facts and data. You can read more about that in my blog here;
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
or just buy the book: “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker, available from Exclusive Books, ISBN: PB: 978-1-4411-1970-4
3) On the idea that religious thinking is irrational
I addressed this here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/
Truth is that nobody knows for sure what came before the Big Bang. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!
4) on the issue that religion has held women and the rights of women back.
I don’t disagree that religions have held women back and some of them still do. I did a careful analysis to see what Jesus had to say on it . I found that Jesus is probably the first man in recorded history who stood up for the rights of women. Remember what Jesus said to the men who wanted to stone the woman who had committed adultery? His statements on divorce made it very clear that the rights of men and women should be equal. (You can read more about that on page 28 of my book that you can access here: http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc.
The point I wanted to make here is that Jesus (God) left a finger print of Himself by the sacrificial life that He led on earth and the words that He spoke. Is it now His fault that (many) people past and present did not look closer or did not chose to look closer on how things ought to be between male and female, to eliminate the error?
5) on the issue that you don’t need God for inspiration to do good.
I refer to this in Chapter 17 of my book page 41 .Matt 25:31-46. You can read this here.
http://www.hourofpower.org/global/south_africa/news/JesusisGodbook.doc
It must be possible to measure our faith in Him by the (positive) effect it has on the people around us, such as family, friends, our church and even our city and country. If somebody cares more for other people than for him/herself, then he or she is doing God’s work whether he or she believes in Him or not. Jesus says: no greater love has he than him who gives his own life for a friend. But I don’t think “science” or “self examination” will inspire you or make you to take certain steps to do good. If you will analyse the things carefully and go back you will find that a string of events came together or occurred one after the other that made you decide: you have to do something. Looking back at my own life I saw exactly such a string of events that made me come and help to bring an end to apartheid. There were things that happened as a result of my actions here (e.g. after my correspondence with prof. Heyns) that still hurt to this day. But I realized there are casualties in a war. In the end, we won. During my employment as a plant chemist I was probably the first (white) shop steward ever elected for MEWUSA. As a result of my involvement with the End Conscription Campaign I had also started visiting people in prison, initially just those that refused to do military service. I remember it was probably also due to my correspondence with President de Klerk that eventually led to all these people being released. After apartheid came to an end, I carried on visiting prisoners and started a prison ministry, visiting prisoners in weekends. From 2007 I resigned my work as a chemist and now run two small charities, full time.
Science is now my hobby, but again I found that the reason why I was directed ( as a hobby) to check out global warming must be because there is some “bigger” reason. (I refer to the nuclear accidents as explained earlier). We need energy. Clearly shale gas is the way to go.
6) what is the exact relationship between science and religion?
If you define religion as: seeking God’s face and asking Him to show you which is the way (to do good) and you define science as doing tests and measurements and evaluations to find out what to do (to do good), then it should not take you very long to figure out that science and religion are two paths that both must lead to the truth.
A Roman Catholic talking about truth?
(Reply: Painting millions with the same brush? Why not Jews? Moslems?
Please take your hating elsewhere. ~mod)
Gail. Fundamental error in principal. All a Republic is, is that it is not a monarchy and refers to a State. Democracy is a form of Government. Thus you live in a democratic republic rather than a dictatorship republic or a theocratic republic.
inre silver ralph’s post
The agreement between the people who were former slaves in Egypt was a contract agreement through the hand of a mediator, Moses. The original testament, or contractual vow, was entered into voluntarily by the people of Israel and their God. In this contract, the people agreed to essentially follow the 10 Commandments; it also provides a basic social structure. In this way, it is a bold experiment in self-government based on laws agreed upon by all parties involved. They agreed that they would not enter into the idolatrous and corrupt practices of the people in the land of Canaan. That includes rejecting everything to do with the cultures of the surrounding nations – from making and bowing down to an idol, through temple prostitution, and on to child sacrifice.
In the social structure, there were to be 12 tribes, or provinces, with elders of families representing them, and private property which does not permanently change hands (for more than 70 years at a time). There was to be a priesthood which could judge legal issues, but did not own property – and interestingly therefore were not able to expand their property through bribes. That was a limited judiciary. The law was in writing and could be referred to by anyone. Laws applied equally to all people. There was to be no king. It was not a monarchy until four hundred years later. The transition to a monarchy was considered a great disaster and failing of the people to keep their original agreement.
Whatever you may think, this was a bold experiment in self-government. The basis for that self-government was the understanding and keeping of the laws contained in the 10 Commandments. And that meant utter rejection of the practices of the people in the region.
Here is a version of the 10 Commandments which would support the basic structure of the society for the people of Israel. These were the laws voluntarily adopted and agreed upon by the people in 1440 BC. This is a newer translation:
Only one God, and no idols.
Watch yer mouth.
Git yourself to a Sunday meetin’.
Honor your Ma and Pa.
No tellin’ tales or gossipin’.
No foolin’ around with another fella’s gal.
No murderin’.
Don’t take what ain’t yers.
Don’t be hankerin’ for your buddy’s stuff.
Now if you are wondering whether the people kept the agreement and lived by the law of Moses, you will just have to read the rest of the book.
Pat Frank says:
December 25, 2013 at 8:49 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. But if a simple discussion about the predictive capabilities of models on temperature alone was over Warren’s head, there wasn’t much point trying to take him to the next level. But excellent point to make for those who are up to speed on the issue and beyond relying on videos to inform their opinion.
Science as practiced and considered of itself has the voids (uncertainty) of Mosher’s contingent reality, but science as it exists in nature is defined, absolute, everlasting, and quite likely beyond our reach to fully grasp. Science as it exists in nature is reality and necessarily the truth. Any acceptance of voidless reality requires faith and our science as practiced simply disallows that. Our weakness is we don’t know how to close that gap and we’re left with the flaws and fraud of contingent reality and the policies that issue from those flaws.
.
And without wishing to dampen any Xmas spirit, the gospels of Xianity are not much better at social morality:
Then said Jesus unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his wallet: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luk 22:36
(Jesus said) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Math 10:34
The parable of justification for rich bankers. Jesus said of the rich man:
Why then did you not put my money in a bank, so that I would get it back with interest? And he said to the others, Take the pound away from him, and give it to the man who has ten pounds. To everyone who has, more will be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Luk 19:11-26
Jesus said: he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Math 10:37
Then one said unto Jesus, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But Jesus answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Math 12:47-49
I luuurve the justification for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Sort of ‘Robin Hood through the looking-glass’ – capitalism at its best. But then sticking two fingers up at your family, well surely that comes straight out of Marxism. Confusing creed, huh?
Merry King-of-the-Jews-mas
Wow! and Amen.
ralfellis says, “The parable of justification for rich bankers.” Jesus said of the rich man:
Why then did you not put my money in a bank, so that I would get it back with interest? And he said to the others, Take the pound away from him, and give it to the man who has ten pounds. To everyone who has, more will be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Luke 19:11-26
The land owner entrusted his property to several servants and left to a far country. It was still his property when he returned. Context, context, context.
Pamela,
Water vapor as measured in the atmosphere has been increasing for several decades at the modest rate of 1.2% per decade, (absolute amounts) consistent with the physics expressed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and the rise in global avg temperatures. The earth is a closed system with respect to water, so the amount of water the air can hold, globally, depends almost entirely on the Global avg temperature; and rising temps evaporate more water. Venus is an extreme example (much more extreme than anything projected for earth)….after the formation of Venus, the planet, being closer to the sun than earth,lost its liquid water to evaporation, and the large amount of water evaporated further warmed the planet, such that it now has a temperature as I recall about 500 Celsius higher than the calculations show it would be without atmosphere..hot enough to melt lead. In other words, Venus experienced runaway global warming due to the positive feedback of water vapor and the huge amount of water put into the atmosphere. In contrast, earth is about 60 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than calculated without the atmospheres effects, and mars is not warmer than the no-atmosphere calculation, since it has nearly zero atmosphere. I hope I answered your question.. It’s not that water vapor increased due directly to infrared absorption, rather it increased due the rise in global atmospheric temperature, further amplifying the temperature rise.
Zeke says: December 25, 2013 at 9:28 am
The agreement between the people who were former slaves in Egypt was a contract agreement through the hand of a mediator, Moses.
____________________________________
Yes, but Moses was a murderer, who was banished from Egypt for the murder of an Egyptian and the concealment of his body in the sand. Ex 2:12
And then Moses went on to order the murder of 3,000 people for honoring a different god. Ex 32:28
Then Moses destroyed sixty cities in Og, killing all the women and children in them. 3:4-6
And Joshua was no better. At Jericho he killed all the men, women and children, and stole all the gold, silver and brass. Significantly, the only people allowed to survive the slaughter at Jericho was a prostitute called Rahab and her family, who opened the gates to allow the Israelites in. Josh 6:21-25
What sort of moral role-models were Moses and Joshua? A religion forged in blood cannot assume the high ground in matters of social morality – especially in the 21st century.
Ralph