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
PREAMBLE
- 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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
People laughed at Noah. “Water? It’s trace gas!”
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.
http://emhotep.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/045-vicky02-re-in-barque.png
Another sect assimilated! Soon all religions will be one…
http://s13.postimg.org/9tacg1k9j/License_plate.jpg
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.
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 …” 😉
We have a moral obligation to help our fellow man first, if I actually learned anything from being a minister’s son.
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.
[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]
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:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
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.
[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]
[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]
[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]
[Snip. ‘Reed Burkhart’ is the banned site pest David Socrates. ~mod.]
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.
[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]
[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]
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’.
[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]
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.
[Snip. This commenter is using the identity of another reader. ~mod.]
Name calling?
Well now, it’s crystal clear who won this little debate. ☺
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…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_by_country
all in the name of economic development and human progress.
So I take it they think economic development and human progress are bad things?
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.
Yep. 100% agree.
+1
‘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.
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
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.
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 ,,,,
What better way
To bring the West to its knees?
Renewable energy
Beheading their profitable industries!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/2015/08/08/the-pseudo-morals-of-a-pseudo-science/
Blimey.
That’s presumptuous.
“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.
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.
Ralph
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.)
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.
Chess.
Actually a derivative of the Egyptian ‘senet’ from the New Kingdom era.
Flight.
The first kites were actually in China.
Soap.
Was actually extensively used in Babylon.
Distillation.
Aristotle explains the process of distillation.
Crankshaft.
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.
Windmill.
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?
Ralph
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.
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….
R
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?
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.
“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.
Ralfellis,
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.
>>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).
>>corn.
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:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/91250/solar_boat.jpg
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:
http://www.mythencyclopedia.com/Fi-Go/Floods.html
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.
>>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.
R
Wonderful.
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?
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
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?
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?