'Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change' suggests we are going to hell in a handbasket, links climate to Nepal earthquake

Apparently, this came out of the International Islamic Climate Change Symposium held on August 17-18, and is being touted as another run-up to COP21 in Paris. It seems like they want to be aligned with the Pope and his climate statement. Will we soon have statements from other religious organizations wanting to jump on the Paris Climate Bandwagon? I’d bet on it. I’d also bet that these people who prepared this declaration and website don’t have a clue about the lack of a climate and severe weather link, since on their about page, they are posting  a picture from the April 2015 Nepal Earthquake as if the damage was caused by ‘man-made climate change’. I spotted this picture, circled in red, and in the magnification, the damage didn’t look anything like storm damage.


The filename of the photo ( http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RS28842_NEPAL_009.jpg ) further told me the context was all wrong.

A little searching on the Internet yields the very same photo used in the proper earthquake context:


Source: http://islamicreliefcanada.org/appeals/nepal-earthquake/

I think maybe they need some work on their PR, since we really can’t take them seriously when they blunder like this. Then again, I didn’t take the Pope’s encyclical seriously either, and I’m Catholic.

Here’s the PR, h/t to WUWT reader Gary Sharp.


What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy?

Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change

In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate


  • God – Whom we know as Allah – has created the universe in all its diversity, richness and vitality: the stars, the sun and moon, the earth and all its communities of living beings. All these reflect and manifest the boundless glory and mercy of their Creator. All created beings by nature serve and glorify their Maker, all bow to their Lord’s will. We human beings are created to serve the Lord of all beings, to work the greatest good we can for all the species, individuals, and generations of God’s creatures.
  • Our planet has existed for billions of years and climate change in itself is not new. The earth’s climate has gone through phases wet and dry, cold and warm, in response to many natural factors. Most of these changes have been gradual, so that the forms and communities of life have adjusted accordingly. There have been catastrophic climate changes that brought about mass extinctions, but over time, life adjusted even to these impacts, flowering anew in the emergence of balanced ecosystems such as those we treasure today. Climate change in the past was also instrumental in laying down immense stores of fossil fuels from which we derive benefits today. Ironically, our unwise and short-sighted use of these resources is now resulting in the destruction of the very conditions that have made our life on earth possible.
  • The pace of Global climate change today is of a different order of magnitude from the gradual changes that previously occurred throughout the most recent era, the Cenozoic. Moreover, it is human-induced: we have now become a force dominating nature. The epoch in which we live has increasingly been described in geological terms as the Anthropocene, or “Age of Humans”. Our species, though selected to be a caretaker or steward (khalifah) on the earth, has been the cause of such corruption and devastation on it that we are in danger ending life as we know it on our planet. This current rate of climate change cannot be sustained, and the earth’s fine equilibrium (mīzān) may soon be lost. As we humans are woven into the fabric of the natural world, its gifts are for us to savour. But the same fossil fuels that helped us achieve most of the prosperity we see today are the main cause of climate change. Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us by God, whom we know as Allah – gifts such as a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans. But our attitude to these gifts has been short-sighted, and we have abused them. What will future generations say of us, who leave them a degraded planet as our legacy? How will we face our Lord and Creator?
  • We note that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP, 2005) and backed by over 1300 scientists from 95 countries, found that “overall, people have made greater changes to ecosystems in the last half of the 20th century than at any time in human history… these changes have enhanced human well-being, but have been accompanied by ever increasing degradation (of our environment).”

“Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of the earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”

  • Nearly ten years later, and in spite of the numerous conferences that have taken place to try to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the overall state of the Earth has steadily deteriorated. A study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comprising representatives from over 100 nations published in March 2014 gave five reasons for concern. In summary, they are:
  • Ecosystems and human cultures are already at risk from climate change;
  • Risks resulting from climate change caused by extreme events such as heat waves, extreme precipitation and coastal flooding are on the rise;
  • These risks are unevenly distributed, and are generally greater for the poor and disadvantaged communities of every country, at all levels of development;
  • Foreseeable impacts will affect adversely Earth’s biodiversity, the goods and services provided by our ecosystems, and our overall global economy;
  • The Earth’s core physical systems themselves are at risk of abrupt and irreversible changes.


We are driven to conclude from these warnings that there are serious flaws in the way we have used natural resources – the sources of life on Earth. An urgent and radical reappraisal is called for. Humankind cannot afford the slow progress we have seen in all the COP (Conference of Parties – climate change negotiations) processes since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published in 2005, or the present deadlock.

  • In the brief period since the Industrial Revolution, humans have consumed much of the non-renewable resources which have taken the earth 250 million years to produce – all in the name of economic development and human progress. We note with alarm the combined impacts of rising per capita consumption combined with the rising human population. We also note with alarm the multi-national scramble now taking place for more fossil fuel deposits under the dissolving ice caps in the arctic regions. We are accelerating our own destruction through these processes.
  • Leading climate scientists now believe that a rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperature, which is considered to be the “tipping point”, is now very unlikely to be avoided if we continue with business-as-usual; other leading climate scientists consider 1.5 degrees centigrade to be a more likely “tipping point”. This is the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change, which will expose yet more millions of people and countless other creatures to drought, hunger and flooding. The brunt of this will continue to be borne by the poor, as the Earth experiences a drastic increase in levels of carbon in the atmosphere brought on in the period since the onset of the industrial revolution.

1.8 It is alarming that in spite of all the warnings and predictions, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol which should have been in place by 2012, has been delayed. It is essential that all countries, especially the more developed nations, increase their efforts and adopt the pro-active approach needed to halt and hopefully eventually reverse the damage being wrought.

Source: http://islamicclimatedeclaration.org/islamic-declaration-on-global-climate-change/ 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 20, 2015 1:45 pm

Blest be the CO2, giver of life.

michael hart
Reply to  kim
August 20, 2015 4:20 pm

greenpeace be upon it.

michael hart
Reply to  michael hart
August 20, 2015 4:26 pm

stay on the scene
go to Paris
like a Pachauri machine

Jimmy Haigh
August 20, 2015 1:51 pm

Those photos could have been taken in, oh, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen…

George Tetley
Reply to  Jimmy Haigh
August 21, 2015 12:54 am

I have often wondered why Muslims immigrate to Christian countries, now it all becomes clear, PARIS !!
I suppose Jimmy, that next year you will be adding Germany, England, and France to your list.

August 20, 2015 1:55 pm

I’m a Catholic also, Anthony, and the good news is that the Pope is only infallible in facts of Faith or Morals, and of course climate change is neither, so we can retain our clear consciences on this subject. I have often wondered about the morals of the Pope’s advisors, who of course have advised him on matters climate. They appear to be a curious lot!

Curious George
Reply to  Rosarugosa
August 20, 2015 2:31 pm

Climate change is neither Faith nor Morals? For some people it is both.

Reply to  Rosarugosa
August 20, 2015 9:33 pm

Wasn’t it a pope, now deceased, who defined papal infallibility?

August 20, 2015 2:02 pm

“We are driven to conclude from these warnings that there are serious flaws in the way we have used natural resources – the sources of life on Earth.”
Does this mean OPEC will stop pumping oil?

Gary Pearse
August 20, 2015 2:07 pm

I thought everything was God’s will.

4 eyes
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 20, 2015 4:12 pm

My thought exactly.

Stuart Jones
Reply to  4 eyes
August 20, 2015 9:43 pm

What God wants…God Gets….

Will Hudson
August 20, 2015 2:08 pm

Allah says : ” … we are in danger ending life as we know it …”. Well, yes, but apparently not quickly enough, so “we” must help it along with shootings and bombings.

Reply to  Will Hudson
August 20, 2015 2:10 pm

Beheadings, throwing people off roofs, mass drownings, and posting it all on the Internet.

Reply to  J. Richard Wakefield
August 20, 2015 4:51 pm

Well , hey , when you are out to win people’s hearts and minds …

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  J. Richard Wakefield
August 20, 2015 5:25 pm

The strange thing is that such behaviour does win the hearts and minds of the people they are trying to attract.
Human nature is weirder than you can imagine.

August 20, 2015 2:08 pm

Well, AGW is very much like a religious cult, so no surprise that other religions would see AGW as a method to control the sheeple.

Reply to  J. Richard Wakefield
August 20, 2015 2:43 pm

Perhaps it is the AGW alarmists who have been cultivating the religious leaders behind the scenes knowing full well that they can entrench their message by proxy.

Reply to  kalsel3294
August 20, 2015 4:08 pm

There is no doubt in my mind that the AGW alarmists have been cultivating the religious leaders behind the scenes. Non-governmental organizations (including ACORN) have infiltrated all of the major Christian churches with their ‘social gospel’.
Stephanie Block, an author and investigate journalist chronicled the relationship between American religious institutions and radical community organizers in 4 volumes.

August 20, 2015 2:14 pm

It is essential that all countries, especially the more developed nations…
…send us money now damnit!

August 20, 2015 2:15 pm

This , I think is a little like the UN declaring ” 120 countries that are completely dependent on us agree…”

August 20, 2015 2:18 pm

Because nothing promotes science quite like a religion that will smite those that question.

Chris Hanley
August 20, 2015 2:26 pm

Blair’s Law, it’s settled science:

August 20, 2015 2:26 pm

One would think Muslims have more pressing problems on their hands.
Also, Islam is a very deterministic religion. It says in Koran that omniscient and omnipotent god has preordained everything in the past, in the present, and in the future, and that men cannot change it, whatever they do is already decided by god. All we can hope for is god’s mercy but we cannot know if god takes our hopes into consideration.
Blah-blah rules this world.

Curious George
August 20, 2015 2:28 pm

Being religious is not an automatic cure for stupidity.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Curious George
August 24, 2015 7:24 am

More like a cause.

August 20, 2015 2:29 pm

Just wait until Boko Haram* gets wind of Islam’s venturing into academic scientific speculation!
*(As I understand it, “Boko Haram” loosely translates to “books are forbidden, or evil”)

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 20, 2015 2:32 pm

*(… except for the Quran, I’m guessing)

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 20, 2015 2:49 pm

means Western is literally dirty or unclean – mix of Hausa and Arabic

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 20, 2015 2:52 pm

I think it translates as “Western education is evil”. Could we get away with saying that “Middle Eastern education is evil”?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Lombok Timur
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 21, 2015 2:36 am

“Boko” means “West” as in ‘Western” with a capital W. Haram means “unclean” as in “forbidden”. Direct translation.

August 20, 2015 2:42 pm

What a rotten old bunch of slack-jawed, mouth-breathing numpties!

August 20, 2015 2:43 pm

” we have now become a force dominating nature”
Hubris of the highest order. Have they never watched a force of nature at work — perhaps an earthquake to take an apposite example?
Mankind has no chance of ever “dominating nature”. “He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh”, and he must be laughing like mad at the statements of AGWists and clerics as the fall over themselves to claim ever more responsibility for what God has always had under his full control.

August 20, 2015 2:55 pm
Paul Westhaver
August 20, 2015 3:32 pm

I have a good feeling about this. The more the religious leaders pile on, the less credibility CAGW due to CO2 has in terms of science.
Check me out. Since WUWT began I have declared here that AGW is a religion so why would I be disappointed when the majority of religious hierarchies now claim that CO2 is is linked to AGW and it is a matter of faith that exhaling is poisoning the world.
Fortunately for we skeptics of CAGW, we don’t have to try very hard to make the case that environmentalism is religious dogma. Also the UN is now being diluted by 5 billion, Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus. And that is good.
Now, someone here made the case that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
And the EPA and Obama may be in violation of the establishment clause.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
August 20, 2015 4:00 pm

Unfortunately, that applies only to Congress, and, by Amendment, to the States. Our founders did not think to add “nor any international collection of busybodies”.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  skorrent1
August 20, 2015 4:10 pm

I am wondering if a constitutional challenge based on the establishment clause may be worth pursuing?.

August 20, 2015 3:55 pm

Is there any comfort in knowing that the the International Islamic Climate Change Symposium has come out on the same side as the Administration.

August 20, 2015 4:03 pm

“The pace of Global climate change today is of a different order of magnitude from the gradual changes that previously occurred throughout the most recent era, the Cenozoic.”
Different in that it is smaller…

August 20, 2015 4:04 pm

Lots of posters seem to lump all Muslims together. Just as there are a zillion different kinds of Christian, there are a zillion kinds of Muslim. Never forget that the majority of the world’s Muslims are our friends.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  commieBob
August 20, 2015 4:12 pm

I know about 20 Muslims. I would consider about 11 of them my friends….so…eleven.

Reply to  commieBob
August 21, 2015 7:36 am

Yes there are lots of Christian varieties but only one Bible which says love your enemy and one Koran which has a far different message.

A Crooks
August 20, 2015 4:07 pm

Now we are really talking “Big Oil”

August 20, 2015 4:44 pm

As a member of draft team let me tell you WHY I signed the declaration.
I grew up in a small village as a child of a farmer. I enjoyed the beauty of natural environment with all its richness. When I saw my first but unfortunately the last wild wolf in my life, I was almost seven years old. I could still drink the water of creeks as it was crystal-clear then.
Later, I learnt that, Rachel Carson was writing her seminal and groundbreaking book the Silent Spring in the same years. This humble book sparked and triggered many creative and sensitive minds to look at the problem in a new way.
Now, I have four children and two grandchildren. I never thought that my descendants might not enjoy the same kind of life that I had. It seems they live in a different world. They never saw a wild animal in nature, unless in documentaries and zoo. I have concerns about their future and the world they are going to live in. Therefore, environmental problems in general and Climate Change in particular is a moral issue for me.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  ibrahim
August 20, 2015 5:04 pm

I assure you that all here at WUWT are greatly concerned for the environment but
Why is climate change a “moral” issue for you?
Is it because you too want to bring down capitalism in favor of socialism?
Is it because you have bought the message that carbon is pollution?
Is it because we’re doomed unless we erect wind turbines and solar arrays – where will that environment you enjoyed go?
Thanks in advance … ma’salam

Reply to  ibrahim
August 20, 2015 5:41 pm

You’re allowed your own personal opinions, of course.
But the declaration above and your rationale have no commonality.
The last wild wolf, you saw, in your youth was certainly not a victim of climate change.
Nor is the crystal-clear water of the creek in your youth.
A more likely explanation and reason is local population growth and their individual cares for the environment as they sought a living.
Rachel Carson’s book struck many people and changed they way they view nature.
Rachel Carson did care nor pay attention to science that she disagreed with. Nor did Rachel ever bother to prove her pet theories.
The offshoots of Rachel Carson are today’s eco-zealots. People who gladly cite discarded theories and falsified science without concern for the damage they do to today’s science, agriculture, living conditions, or health involving millions of people.
If your grandchildren have not witnessed nature and wildlife, that is definitely not the fault of climate. That is solely caused by urban living. Move them to the mountains.
America re-established several wolf populations by re-introducing them to certain environs. Re-introduce the wolf and protect them. Soon you may have wolves watching you drink again.

Patrick Adelaide
Reply to  ibrahim
August 20, 2015 7:26 pm

Ibrahim, asallamu alaykum. You and I share the same faith in the Deen of Islam but, we do not share the same belief in the “religion” of climate change. I use that word particularly to emphasise that climate change activism is dogmatic and based on as much belief as science. I respect your reasons, as stated, for signing the declaration – but, having read the declaration, I can see that it is based on dogma and belief.
I will highlight the statements with respect to the world’s poor people. In implication the declaration wants them to get their share of declining resources. The farm, the clear water and the wildlife you grew up with has been impacted on, not by fossil fuel use, not by rising CO2 levels but rather by increasing populations and the resultant impact on land and water use and other resources. You cannot and will not have a positive impact on those poor by diminishing the wealth of developed lands through redirecting use of limited resources to those poor (their share) whilst reducing the capacity of developed nations to economically manage their lands. I recently found that African countries are incredibly power poor. Only the few developed countries have really useful high capacity power generation and very few have the stability of coal generators. The biggest impact on the poor of Africa will be to provide reliable high capacity power over widespread grid infrastructure. Economies in Africa can grow with reliable and available power and with a growing economy and rising education and health standards the population growth of Africa will be slowed. As will famine and other horrible health problems. At the moment Africans are being forced to implement low capacity solar, wind and gas generation. Some even are using diesel! Whilst I laud the intentions of your group to assist the world’s poor (I have a loose association with Islamic Relief) your group is simply going about it in the typical western activist manner with all of its “I know what is best for you mentality”.
As has been mentioned, the folk here at WUWT are deeply concerned for the environment. We know full well that land use excesses, land use changes and irresponsibility can have a grievous impact on the environment. For this and other reasons, most of use are not supporters of the so-called sustainable (yet in reality deplorable) use of solar and wind generation methods. The Sahel and other regions have been devastated by tree destruction – so the poor can have fuel for cooking etc. In many regions, due to rising CO2 levels the biosphere has been recovering. Indeed there is approx 14% more green life out there now since 1980 than before. In the crazy world in which we live though, activists in UK have forced at least one coal fired power station to convert from coal to wood chips, sourced from the US. So, a 1st world country is reaping a form of environmental damage akin to a 3rd world country in the name of climate change. Does this make sense to you?
Lastly, and I apologise for my long post, your group may well speak for itself but in no way has the remit, the permission or authority to speak for all Muslims, let alone myself. You have much more political and economic impact and clout than I do yet you may have well less knowledge about this situation than I. I see that the majority of your “24 Professional Speakers” do not have degrees in science, let alone Meteorology, Geology, Engineering, Mathematics and Statistics, Chemistry and Physics. The majority are activists working either in the climate change “industry”, in services to the poor or in religious studies. How on earth can you make authoritative statements? I do not give you the authority to speak on my behalf nor to imply that you speak on behalf of the Muslim communities around the world. Masallami.

Patrick Adelaide
Reply to  ibrahim
August 20, 2015 7:36 pm

Here are two links. One to power stations in Africa and one in Turkey. Developed Turkey, with a stable, healthy and educated population has significant power generation, including 2 nuclear stations which combined produce as much power as the many solar, wind and hydro stations in Turkey. A much less environmental footprint and more available, stable power.

George Tetley
Reply to  Patrick Adelaide
August 21, 2015 1:12 am

why have 10 children ?
and don’t forget to kill the female babies

Patrick Adelaide
Reply to  Patrick Adelaide
August 21, 2015 7:59 pm

Not sure what you mean George. I recall reading an economic analysis of why people in traditional agricultural settings benefit from having large families. Factor in childhood death rates and available family labour amongst other factors. I can’t recall exactly but you get the idea. Education and economic enrichment makes it unnecessary to have large families.
As to your kill the female babies – is that your preferred option to population control? Bit harsh. And people have a concern about abortion. If you are implying that that is a Muslim thing then that is just not correct.

Reply to  ibrahim
August 21, 2015 12:13 pm

“Just 50 years ago, the Thames was so polluted it was declared “biologically extinct”, too dirty for anything to survive there.”
Now “Marine mammals thriving in Thames” all because we continue to progress and improve and don’t just give up in the name of environmentalism.

Reply to  ibrahim
August 21, 2015 2:08 pm

Ibrahim says:
They never saw a wild animal in nature, unless in documentaries and zoo. I have concerns about their future and the world they are going to live in. Therefore, environmental problems in general and Climate Change in particular is a moral issue for me.
“Therefore”?? Complete non-sequitur. That’s like saying you saw a flock of geese high overhead, and therefore climate change is a moral issue for you. Logic isn’t your strong point.
And if you want your children to see wild animals in nature, take them out of the city and quit complaining about it.
America has fixed 99.9% of her environmental problems. When I grew up you couldn’t see across the rivers in Pittsburg. Now the air is clear, and you can see for miles. When I grew up the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland regularly caught fire, and fish were rare. Now the EPA has stated that fish caught in the river are safe to eat. There are thousands of similar stories.
We should keep working on environmental concerns — provided there is a cost/benefit analysis done. For example, if reducing CO2 by 50 ppm costs $10 trillion, is it worth it?
Finally, “climate change” happens all the time. It has happened just the same, or worse, when there were no human emissions. The problem is that you have been hit over the head 24/7/365 by the media drumbeat about “climate change”, and you’re head-nodding along with their narrative without thinking. But what does “climate change” really mean?
Answer: it doesn’t mean anything. Yet by your admission it has become part of your religion. The narrative has colonized your mind, and closed the door behind it.
If you you cannot think logically and rationally, you are just being a tool of those with an agenda. That’s easier than thinking for yourself, no?

August 20, 2015 5:51 pm

I’m all for this idea.
The Cult of the Sacred Tree Ring, works for me.
My religion will consist of the belief that CO2 concentrations are too low for vibrant plant growth.
It is the mission of my church to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, until the Ents return to middle earth.
Once optimum conditions for mobile plants are established the Tree Ring will rule.
Now all sarcasm aside, L Ron Hubbard showed us the way years ago, a little plagiarism , a little head nod to existing myths and you are away to the bonanza realm.
But if one could keep a straight face, the Cult of marching trees has an appeal to the poor lost soles saturated in environmental guilt.Ties right in with current memes and works on the assumption that the modern environmentalist will do anything to save the environment; Except get a scientific education.
I keep forgetting how poorly educated the political science and journalism graduates are.
Perhaps we need to engage them at their own level,FUD, pixie dust or another fine myth?

Rodzki of Oz
August 20, 2015 6:08 pm

Excellent. The first order of business should be that these Islamic scholars demand the end of the oil business in countries like, oh I don’t know, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE. When I see them starting that campaign, I’ll accept they actually believe what they say.

August 20, 2015 6:14 pm

If God was powerful enough to create the universe He is certainly powerful enough to inhibit any adverse impact that a trace amount of a trace gas would have on a small insignificant planet. IMHO

Reply to  Mike
August 21, 2015 5:59 am

People laughed at Noah. “Water? It’s trace gas!”

Reply to  Felix
August 21, 2015 8:40 am

And they still laugh at people who believe in Noah.
Below is an image of the Egyptian Ark of God, and in it you will find the ‘animals’ and their wives. Including Thoth the ibis, Horus the hawk, Anubis the jackal, Apis the bull, Hathor the bull, Knum the ram, etc: etc:
And the cosmic sea that this Ark sailed across was called Nu, from which the Israelites derived Nua. If you want to understand the Book of Genesis, you need to go back to Egypt, whence these myths were all derived.

August 20, 2015 6:43 pm

Another sect assimilated! Soon all religions will be one…

August 20, 2015 6:58 pm

Oddly enough, we all agree that pollution should be stopped where possible. The only thing we can’t agree on is what pollution actually is! If only we were tackling the solid waste disposal issue with this world-wide fervor. Better yet, bringing sanitation and clean water to the third world.
I became involved in this debate because I care about REAL pollution and want to see this detour from attainable actions on the more pressing problems of the environment ended.
It is clearer with each religious endorsement that men of science should not pretend to know theology and men of theology should not pretend to know science.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
August 21, 2015 6:04 am

The scientists, for the most part, say human caused climate change is real and dangerous. The theologians, for the most part, are saying we have a moral obligation to follow the scientists’ recommendations. “Lead me not into denial …” 😉

Reply to  Felix
August 21, 2015 8:42 am

We have a moral obligation to help our fellow man first, if I actually learned anything from being a minister’s son.

Reply to  Felix
August 21, 2015 5:54 pm

Felix says:
The scientists, for the most part, say human caused climate change is real and dangerous.
Name those ‘scientists’.
For every one you can name, I will name a thousand who disagree — in writing.

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
August 21, 2015 6:23 pm

[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]

Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:06 pm

Reed Burkhart,
Has every individual you named stated in writing that human-caused global warming is real and dangerous? Really? “Dangerous”?
You will have to do more than just post a list of names. Because your link says no such thing. Show me the word “dangerous”. It isn’t there.
On the other hand, there are tens of thousands of folks highly educated in the hard sciences, who have signed their names to a statement saying that human emissions are not harmful, and may be beneficial.
Let’s start with the co-signers of the OISM Petition: 31,487 scientists and engineers. You say you have 39 — but where are their statements? I think you’re winging it.
Now we can move on to Poptech’s list:
So far, you have not shown that anyone on your list has stated that MMGW is “dangerous”.
Gotta do better than that. Otherwise, you lose.

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:09 pm

[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:11 pm

[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:15 pm

[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:25 pm

[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]

Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:47 pm

Reed Burkhart,
You’ve already lost, and lost badly.
My specific challenge was to name those scientists who say that human caused climate change is real and dangerous. Key word: “dangerous”. Because as everyone knows, the climate always changes. Naturally. There are no measurements showing human emissions have anything to do with it.
You have not posted even one verifiable statement from anyone on your list who has stated that climate change is “dangerous”. You are merely deflecting; moving the goal posts, like every desperate climate alarmist does all the time.
So far, I’ve posted the names of at least 34,000 scientists and engineers who state the opposite: that there is nothing dangerous happening. That’s 34,000 to zero. You have zero.
But keep trying. Maybe you can find one or two.

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:52 pm

[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 7:54 pm

[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]

Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 8:14 pm

Reed Burkhart,
You are dissembling.
I specified the parameters of my challenge. But you have not posted the name of a single person along with verifiable evidence that they have written that climate change is “dangerous”. You have not shown that anyone on your cut ‘n’ pasted list ever said climate change is “dangerous”.
Try being honest for once. Either post any names you can find, along with their verifiable statement that includes the word “dangerous” — or admit that you’ve got nothin’.
Still my 34,000 to your zero. You’ve got nothin’.

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 8:20 pm

[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]

Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 8:37 pm

You owe me 15,000 names.
You are amusing. So far it’s:
My 34,000 to your zero.
Because in order for you to count a name, you have to post verifiable evidence showing that the person you name has stated that ‘climate change’ is “dangerous”. So far, you fail.
And to make it clear: the climate always changes. That is not the issue here. The issue is “dangerous man-made global warming”. Because “climate change” is a meaningless term by itself.
Mr. Burkhart, you took up a challenge that I made to someone else. You went off half-cocked, and you didn’t read the challenge. You made a wrong assumption, and now you’re desperately backing and filling by trying to re-frame what I wrote.
You are not half smart enough to pull that off. So pay attention to what I wrote — I said I can post a thousand names for every scientist you can find who has written that climate change is “dangerous” (and by dangerous I mean as in: “dangerous man-made global warming”).
If you can find 34 verifiable statements that MMGW is “dangerous” I will graciously concede that I could only find 997 – 1, or whatever it is, rather than a thousand.
But at this point, it’s still:
Me: 34,000
You: zero
Unless you can do a lot better, you lose.

Reed Burkhart
Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 21, 2015 8:42 pm

[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]

Reply to  Reed Burkhart
August 22, 2015 9:39 am

Name calling?
Well now, it’s crystal clear who won this little debate. ☺

August 20, 2015 7:03 pm

They point out that the islamic faith community represents a significant portion of the world’s population. Hmmmm…. Seems that they also represent a significant portion of the world’s oil production…

August 20, 2015 7:14 pm

all in the name of economic development and human progress.
So I take it they think economic development and human progress are bad things?

August 20, 2015 7:23 pm

When the toxic fumes of the dung fires are replaced with scrubber exhaust emitted miles away from the towns of the third world countries, and affluent education brings smaller families and inventive contributions to the human community, We will be well on our way to a smaller global population which is less dependent than ever on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they are the only practical means to that end.

Patrick Adelaide
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
August 20, 2015 7:29 pm

Yep. 100% agree.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
August 20, 2015 10:29 pm


Tom J
August 20, 2015 9:12 pm

‘Excessive pollution from fossil fuels threatens to destroy the gifts bestowed on us by God, whom we know as Allah – gifts such as a functioning climate, healthy air to breathe, regular seasons, and living oceans.’
Um, might some of those gifts from Allah also include mosquitoes, malaria, hornets, wasps, yellow jackets, gnats, brown recluse spiders, bed bugs, ticks, Lyme disease, hair lice, scabies, leeches, plague, rabies, tuberculosis, staphylococcus and streptococcus germs, famines, shingles, chicken pox, mumps, measles, influenza epidemics, tornadoes, occasional mountain lion attacks, shark attacks, influenza outbreaks, poison ivy, hair lip, stinging nettle, flies, fleas.
And the occasional lightning strike if you get him mad.

Richard Barraclough
Reply to  Tom J
August 21, 2015 1:10 am

And I presume those gifts from Allah include the complete jerks who think it’s fun to cut other people’s heads off?
Incidentally, do muslims believe in evolution, or do they share those imaginitive “creationist” beliefs one hears of fom time to time amongst religious groups

Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 20, 2015 10:28 pm

The meme posted by the Aussie Climate Council looks like it was written by Tim Flannery. Strange bedfellows, comin’ right up.
The world is going to hell in a handbasket, right before our eyes. Creepy George Soros is going to the bank.

August 20, 2015 11:49 pm

greeting to all
I am Muslim, prophet Mohammad tell us that the Arab Peninsula climate will change, from deserted area to Green lawns, How? he did not tell us.
This was crazy idea as describe by Atheists 30 years and they said it need millions and millions of years to this could happen, Nowadays every one speak about climate change ,,,,

August 21, 2015 12:14 am

What better way
To bring the West to its knees?
Renewable energy
Beheading their profitable industries!

August 21, 2015 1:07 am

In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate

That’s presumptuous.

August 21, 2015 3:21 am

“The pace of Global climate change today is of a different order of magnitude from the gradual changes that previously occurred throughout the most recent era, the Cenozoic. ”
So we find that islamists believe in the hockey stick too. Who woulda thunk it.

August 21, 2015 8:26 am

A few things that you may have thought you knew about Islam, but probably don’t.
Muhummad was an illiterate petty warlord of the early 7th century, whose small band of Meccan outcasts lived by plundering Meccan camel trains.
To silence criticism by the Jews, Muhummad lined up 900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe and beheaded them all. Please search for the Genocide of Banu Qurayza.
The creed he created was essentially a violent protection racket, with protection money (the Jizya) being paid by all unbelievers to sustain his warriors. The Jizya tax and subjugation of kuffer unbelievers is a central component in the Koran.
The ‘science’ in the Koran is laughable, and includes a geocentric solar system and the Sun setting in a muddy pool in the west.
Before Islam, the entire Middle East, Near East, North Africa, and Anatolia was Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian and Sabaean. Some until very recently. Iraq was substantially Jewish until the great exile in 1947. Anatolia was substantially Christian until 1922, and the tragic Armenian and Rhom Greek genocides.
The Golden Age of Islam is a falsehood, it never happened. Not one of the claimed inventions of Islam was Islamic. They were all pre-existing Roman, Greek, Persian or Indian inventions. While the saving of Greek texts and knowledge was done by the Syriac Christians who ran the region.
The Middle East was run in the same fashion that it is now, with an Islamic elite and army, but all the work being performed by Syriac and Armenian Christians and Babylonian Jews. But just like the Middle East today, the kuffer unbeliever workforce had few rights, paid the Jizya protection money, and lived under the Covenant of Dhimmitude.
A Dhimmi is a second-class citizen, a kuffer unbeliever living in lands invaded and controlled by Muslims. But the rules of Dhimmitude were so harsh that most of the Christian and Jewish populations who ran the Middle and Near East died out. Others pretended to be Muslim, to avoid these harsh rules and the punitive Jizya taxes, like the Druze, Alawites and Alevi.
Like today, the higher education of the Middle East was run by Syriac Christians. Islam does not do education, which is why there have only ever been three Muslim Nobel Prizes for science. The same goes for sport too, with Christian countries winning about 3,000 golds in the modern Olympiad and Islamia winning just 85.
In short, little or nothing of significance has ever been produced by Islamia.

Gunga Din
Reply to  ralfellis
August 21, 2015 2:05 pm

Thank you. I didn’t know some of that stuff.
If I’m not mistaken, most, if not all of “The Golden Age” of Arab countries occurred before there even was such a thing as “Islam”? (Yes, that is a question, not a claim.)

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 21, 2015 11:49 pm

Yes. Here are some of the common claims to Muslim inventions.
Camera Obscura.
The give-away that this was actually a Roman invention is that camera oscura means ‘dark room’ in Latin.
Actually a derivative of the Egyptian ‘senet’ from the New Kingdom era.
The first kites were actually in China.
Was actually extensively used in Babylon.
Aristotle explains the process of distillation.
Roman saw-mills depended on the crankshaft.
Non, semi-circular arches.
The Mardin arch in a 3rd century church is completely flat.
Surgical instruments.
The Egyptian temple at Kom Ombo depicts a complete set of Surgical instruments.
Heron of Alexandria made a windmill.
And so it goes on and on.
But the really sad thing is the West has played up to these ‘Muslim inventions’ without criticism. The ‘1001 Muslim Inventions’ circus was hosted in the London Science Museum without question (and in all other European capitals). And the leftish newspapers ran this story without criticism.
So why is academia doing this? Why is academia complicit in a downright lie – just as they are complicit in a downright lie with AGW? Has academia lost its moral compass? Does academia need a root-and-branch cull of all its upper echelons?

Patrick Adelaide
Reply to  ralfellis
August 21, 2015 10:59 pm

Gee Ralph. That is as ignorant a bunch of non-historical claptrap as one could hope to read. Well done. I am sure it will be applauded though by those needy of confirming their bias. This has exactly zero to do with the post about a declaration on climate change by *a* group of Muslims (actually not all were Muslim). This is the sort of red herring drivel one comes to expect of alarmists. You’re not a secret warmy are you?
You know, Islam wasn’t even a consideration for most people – until Iraq started to get bombed in 1990(?) and all the later events occurred. Now it’s the biggest boogie man in the room. With “terror” lurking at every street corner and your thermometer set to explode due to the rapidly escalating climate inferno (/sarc) I do not know how you can sleep in peace. Truly, we’re all being manipulated with lies, deception and chaos. Once the scene is set people like you will keep throwing fuel onto the fire in credulous belief in what you are being told.

Reply to  Patrick Adelaide
August 22, 2015 12:27 am

Ignorant eh? So what exactly did I say that was incorrect?
Or have you now declared the truth to be ignorant? Come on, put up your objections, so we can all see them. Otherwise, you are just indulging in taquiyya (Islamic dissembling) to protect the ‘brand’.
And with regard to fundamentalist Islam being quiescent prior to 9-11 – have you forgotten about:
The four aircraft in the Dawson Field hijackings in 1970? (TWA, PanAm.)
Lufhansa 649 in Aden in 1972?
The Munich massacre in 1972?
Air France 139 in Entebbe 1976?
The US embassy bombing in Beirut in 1983?
The Beirut barracks bombings in 1983?
The second US embassy bombing in Beirut in 1984?
The Kuwait bombings in 1983
Achille Lauro hijack in 1985?
Lockerby in 1988?
The Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires?
The first WTC bombing in 1993?
The Mumbai bombings in 1993?
The terrible Sivas massacre in 1993 – killing poets and musicians?
The Afula, Hadera, 405, and Dizengoff bus bombings?
Air France 8969 in 1994?
The Paris Metro attack in 1995?
Israel bombings, including Netzarim, Beit Lid, Apropo, Mahane Yehuda?
Europa Hotel massacre in Cairo (they were Greeks, not Isralies)?
The Luxor massacre in 1997?
US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998?
Sorry, I forgot, that is just normal operations.
Nothing to see here – move along….

August 21, 2015 11:55 am

Yes, here again we see the usual sweeping generalisations such as ‘ecosystems and human cultures are already at risk from climate change’ with no figures or citations to back them up.
How can anyone believe all this?

August 21, 2015 1:08 pm

Climate Change can do anything, I wonder if it can make people’s heads fall off in their thousands, take child brides, massacre tens of thousands and enslave people.

August 21, 2015 1:44 pm

“God – Whom we know as Allah – has created the universe in all its diversity, richness and vitality: the stars, the sun and moon, the earth and all its communities of living beings.”
Having creationist nonsense in the very first sentence of the preamble is a great way to telegraph that more nonsense follows. I didn’t bother reading past it.

August 21, 2015 2:11 pm

You assert that the name Noah came from Egyptian and that the stories in Genesis derive from Egyptian myths. This idea is not supported by scholarship; just look in the Oxford Dictionary of First Names. The name Noah is most likely of Babylonian and Assyrian origin from the word “nukhu” meaning repose or rest. The flood story in Genesis is similar to the Sumerian and Babylonian flood story. Another explanation sees the name derived from the Hebrew root meaning “to comfort” (nahum) with the final consonant dropped. Both the Assyrian and Babylonian languages along with Hebrew are Semitic Languages. Assyrian survives today as Aramaic and there are many loan words from both these languages found in the Bible.
Egyptian belongs to the Afroasiatic language family which has six branches: Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic and Semitic. So, yes the languages are related, but so are the Indo-European languages. Within extended language families there are problems of false cognates which are words that are spelled or sound similar, but have different meanings. For example, in English there is Corn meaning grain, and Corn, a horny growth of tissue with a tender core. Corn as grain is cognate to German Korn and this makes sense as English is a Germanic language. The other Corn came from French influence and is derived from Latin Cornu meaning horn. French is a Romance language. So the word corn is both a true cognate and a false cognate. This can be confusing but comparative linguistics is a mature and useful discipline.
You may certainly believe what you want about the name Noah. However, evidence does not point to Egyptian as the origin.

Reply to  Richmond
August 22, 2015 12:57 am

>>This idea is not supported by scholarship.
Yes and no. Popular scholarship, no, because the majority is influenced by Christian theologians and apologists. And they have a creed to support. Outside that, it is widely acknowledged that large sections of the Torah and N.T. are Egyptian:
The Nile turning red comes from the Destruction of Mankind.
The Plagues are from the Tempest Stele.
The Sermon on the Mount is from the Maxims of Ani.
Psalm 104 is from the Hymn to the Aten.
Proverbs 22:20 is from the Istructions of Amenemopet.
The Lords Prayer is from the Maxims of Ani and the Book of the Dead.
The Genesis story is from the Hymn to the Aten.
>>The flood story in Genesis is similar to the Sumerian and Babylonian flood story.
The flood story is also similar to the Egyptian creation myth. The cosmos was just the chaotic waters of Nu, but within Nu the primaeval mound or egg arose, the first land of order amongst the chaos, which broke open to reveal the phoenix. Check the dove and raven episodes. So the Ark of Noah was the Ark of Ra that crossed Nu. And the Ark of Nu still exists (see below).
Actually, ‘corn’ comes from the hard skin on an unthreshed grain seed, just like a corn on your foot. It is cognate with a corn or horn, a hard covering, and thence with the Latin cornucopia, the horn or corn of plenty that contained – corn and fruits.
The Ark of Ra that crossed Nu:

Reply to  ralfellis
August 22, 2015 1:45 pm

I’m not trying to be mean to you, but you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. The point I was making was on the etymology of the name Noah and what ancient texts the Biblical flood story is most similar to. This is not “popular scholarship” as you dismiss it. It is instructive that you choose to respond with an ad hominem attack on the majority of scholars as being unduly influenced by religious thought. It is obvious that no matter what is pointed out to you, you will try and muddy the waters, throw up other material, and beat the drum for Egyptian origins. That said, you have posted many things that I agree with so please do not take this as an attack on you personally.
There are three approaches to comparing texts: (1) minimalists, (2) maximalists, (3) somewhere between:
1. The minimalist position will argue that the differences between texts are too great to suppose dependence of one on the other. They think that both must be independent developments of an earlier common tradition.
2. Maximalists will argue that the Genesis editor was in fact familiar with other traditions in something like their present form. They would point out to the similarities in the texts to make a connection between them.
3. The truth probably lies somewhere between the minimalist and maximalist positions.
It is easy to compare the various flood stories. For example here is a quick reference that anyone can look at:
You can find complete texts on the web if the above is not satisfactory. It is obvious how the majority of scholars look at the Sumerian and Babylonian texts, not to forget the Ugaritic. There may be a reason why the minority opinion is in the minority, because it is not firmly supported. Oh, and did you mean to say the Old Testament, O.T.? Because your assertion that the N.T. is Egyptian is not supportable.
As for your comment on corn, the etymology of that is very easy. You don’t have to believe me, anyone can look it up. For example, try Webster’s College Dictionary by Random House. If it is a hard skin as you claim then why is corned-beef corned? It certainly does not have a hard skin. It is corned because of the hard salt particles that are used in its preservation. Corn from the Germanic etymology refers to any small hard particle including sand and metal. Go look up the German word Korn to see that. I easily found it in a copy of Heath’s German and English Dictionary, (revised and enlarged by Karl Breul, M.A., Litt.D. from Cambridge, and Ph.D. Berlin. D.C. Heath and Company, Boston: 1906, page 343.) Or, go look at other references if you please. Cereals are corn not because they have a hard coating, but because they are small and hard.
You may certainly assert what you will, but all of these things are easy to research. You hurt the good points you make by being too dogmatic.

Reply to  ralfellis
August 23, 2015 4:26 am

>>Because your assertion that the N.T. is
>>Egyptian is not supportable.
It is a given fact that much of the Sermon on the Mount comes from the Maxims of Ani, while the Lord’s Prayer is from the Book of the Dead. (But in reverse. The Lord’s Prayer says ‘thou shalt not’, while the BoD says ‘I have not’.)
And it is hardly surprising that the N.T. should contain Egyptian texts….
The Israelites came out of Egypt.
Strabo says most of the Jewish priests were Egyptian.
The title Onias or Anias comes from On or An (Heliopolis).
Jesus went to Egypt for his education.
John the Baptist was a scholar in Alexandria (according to Recognitions).
Simon Magus was the pupil of John the Baptist
etc: etc: etc: The Egyptian connection is undeniable.

Lars P.
August 21, 2015 2:19 pm

They write about pollution, damage done to nature, fragile ecosystem and then in the end Kyoto protocol.
No line mentions CO2.
Human activity, strain on ecosystems etc etc, but then, at the end they go full only against CO2, the plant food. No, not mention it, but mention Kyoto protocol!
“It is alarming that in spite of all the warnings and predictions, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol which should have been in place by 2012, has been delayed. It is essential that all countries, especially the more developed nations, increase their efforts and adopt the pro-active approach needed to halt and hopefully eventually reverse the damage being wrought.”
Do these people understand that they talk about plant food?
I guess not. Reading the confession of one person who signed above ( ibrahim August 20, 2015 at 4:44 pm) – he talks about his childhood at a farm, drinking water from creeks, and Rachel Carson’s book.
It is clear he did not understood the declaration that he signed is about taxing CO2. But yes, we have the pope, we have islamic declaration, what else?

August 21, 2015 4:06 pm

I seem to recall that one of bin laden’s excuses for the 9/11 attack is to destroy the infidels and save the planet. His attack seems like a strategic blunder considering they were in the long term operation of conquest by immigration into europe and the americas. going off half cocked and creating such a massive attack started derailing this long term effort because their opponents started waking up to their threat. This stuff is a worst case scenario as it would seem it is not merely conquest they are after but rather massive population reductions – all of us along with a nice bunch of muslims to reduce human population to below 1 billion. These extremists would appear to believe that there is a real and immediate CAGW threat as why else would they subvert their own long term plan that was working pretty well?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights