Global Warming or Global Con?

Are you ready for the new religion? It's not really new; just a new sect of Darwin's religion of evolution called Global Warming. I understand why so many are being sucked in to this new faith system. It is hard not to succumb when there is an incessant advocacy and ever growing acceptance of the new dogma. It is a great example of how effective constant repetition can be especially when you mix a little bit of truth with a big helping of non-provable speculation.

If you are informed by listening to the main stream influences of our day, global warming is as much a proven fact--as Evolution. Therein lays the problem. It is anything BUT a proven fact and even if the warming aspect was proven, the cause is anything but. But that's not what we are led to believe.

So here this well! From the Pastor's Weekly Briefing of Focus on the Family, "More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. — including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties — have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

But isn't becoming "more green" a good thing and consistent with God's command that we be good stewards of what He entrusted to us? In other words, even if global warming isn't caused by humans in a significant way, isn't it a great thing to protect what we have?

The answer is an emphatic NO, not if the measures taken to be "more green" substantially decrease the quality of human life around the globe. And that is exactly what would happen if the ludicrous elements of the Kyoto Treaty became international law.

Don't get me wrong; while my wife and I despise the whole "green" terminology we were "GREEN" long before it became a fashionable hypocrisy. So do some leg work instead of being a lemming following the "green" crowd over the cliff.

And for further reading here is the entire article from PWB.

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. — including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties — have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign. But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project. In fact, in just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

Why the concern? The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, natural gas and some other organic compounds. ... This [U.N.] treaty is, in our opinion, based on flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide in environmentally helpful."

Knee-jerk reactions with good intentions are causing more harm than help. The recent increase in the cost of food is one example of the consequences of diverting crops, such as corn, to the production of ethanol as a fuel source. The impact that steep corn price increases have had on food distribution to third-world countries has been profoundly negative, according to the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Art Robinson, spokesman and founder of the Petition Project, said the U.N. "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage both the health and welfare of mankind." The list of scientists who have signed the Petition Project includes 9,021 Ph.D.s (which is 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons"), 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

Meanwhile, evangelical pastors, scientists and policymakers have launched another petition drive, We Get It, intended to spread the truth about global warming: That Christians should be good stewards of God's creation and that government policies and regulations based on "faulty science" will hurt people who should be helped.

"The 'We Get It' declaration speaks for me, and I believe it speaks for the vast majority of evangelicals, who are as tired as I am of being misrepresented by people who don't bother to get their theology, their science or their economics right," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "Consequently, they put millions of the world's poor at risk by promoting policies to fight the alleged problem of global warming that will slow economic development and condemn the poor to more generations of grinding poverty and high rates of disease and early death."

The campaign, launched last week, hopes to gather one million signatures supporting the declaration that says God created the world, and that men and women, as Christians, have to take responsibility for that creation; that billions of people will suffer if careless environmental policies are put into place; and that Christians as a group need to take action to help the poor and protect the planet based on biblical truths, not political correctness, according to the Cybercast News Service.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, one of the founders and supporters of the We Get It campaign, said, "You can be green without being gullible. ... I'm afraid that the image that my children will remember is the image of naïve Americans who surrendered our national sovereignty [to U.N. demands] and the income of families to pursue environmental threats and science that are speculative at best."