Friday, September 21, 2012
Should Christian's Be Involved in Politics?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
My Global Warming Skepticism
I am a skeptic when it comes to global warming. I am suspicious of the science for several reasons. One, I distrust the political arm of the United Nations. The U.N. is pushing for radical changes in the way we live, all in the name of saving the planet. They are using fabricated junk science to impose taxes and regulations on free societies in order to bring them under the control of a global government. (I realize that makes me sound like a conspiracy lunatic. However, if you've been reading anything coming from the U.N. lately you will know that the topics of "global economy" and "global initiatives" are being talked about more and more.)
Please don't misunderstand me... I'm all for taking better care of earth. I’m in favor of being better stewards of what God has graciously entrusted to us. That makes sense to me – that we should appreciate the gift of creation and not be trashing it like we often do. I'm just not reading to give Al Gore's science project a passing grade.
As in the theory of evolution, if you state a theory long enough, gullible people, who are more about inclusion and acceptance, jump on the bandwagon of popularity. The unproven theory picks up momentum and is quickly accepted among the mass media and academia elite as being true ("Oh my, look at all the smart people. It must be true."). The theory, then, is carried along by the "consensus science" of press releases, magazine articles, books, thesis, school projects, and propaganda by zealots who carry a hidden agenda. It then grows into a beast so big that no one dares stand in its way -- Warning: Naysayers will be professionally persecuted.
Lord Monckton is one who is boldly standing in front of the global warming beast, waving the cold hard truth in its face. Here is an excerpt from Lord Monckton’s written testimony (his full statement can be found here). Okay, I admit that the math is beyond my understanding, but the last three paragraphs are worth reading and heeding:
Warming at the very much reduced rate that measured (as opposed to merely modeled) results suggest would be 0.7-0.8 K (1.3-1.4 F°) at CO2 doubling. That would be harmless and beneficial -- a doubling of CO2 concentration would increase yields of some staple crops by 40%.
Therefore, one need not anticipate any significant adverse impact from CO2-induced “global warming.” “Global warming” is a non-problem, and the correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
However, ad argumentum, let us assume that the IPCC is correct in finding that a warming of 3.26 ± 0.69 K (5.9 ± 1.2 F°: IPCC, 2007, ch.10, box 10.2) might occur at CO2 doubling. We generalize this central prediction, deriving a simple equation to tell us how much warming the IPCC would predict for any given change in CO2 concentration.
ΔTS ≈ (8.5 ± 1.8) ln(C/Co) F°
Thus, the change in surface temperature in Fahrenheit degrees, as predicted by the IPCC, would be 6.7 to 10.3 (with a central estimate of 8.5) times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. We check the equation by using it to work out the warming the IPCC would predict at CO2 doubling: 8.5 ln 2 ≈ 5.9 F°.
Using this equation, we can determine just how much “global warming” would be forestalled if the entire world were to shut down its economies and emit no carbon dioxide at all for an entire year. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 388 parts per million by volume. Our emissions of 30 bn tons of CO2 a year are causing this concentration to rise at 2 ppmv/year, and this ratio of 15 bn tons of emissions to each additional ppmv of CO2 concentration has remained constant for 30 years.
Then the “global warming” that we might forestall if we shut down the entire global carbon economy for a full year would be 8.5 ln[(388+2)/388] = 0.044 F°. At that rate, almost a quarter of a century of global zero-carbon activity would be needed in order to forestall just one Fahrenheit degree of “global warming.”
Two conclusions ineluctably follow. First, it would be orders of magnitude more cost-effective to adapt to any “global warming” that might occur than to try to prevent it from occurring by trying to tax or regulate emissions of carbon dioxide in any way.
Secondly, there is no hurry. Even after 23 years doing nothing to address the imagined problem, and even if the IPCC has not exaggerated CO2’s warming effect fourfold, the world will be just 1 F° warmer than it is today. If the IPCC has exaggerated fourfold, the world can do nothing for almost a century before global temperature rises by 1 F°.
There are many urgent priorities that need the attention of Congress, and it is not for me as an invited guest in your country to say what they are. Yet I can say this much: on any view, “global warming” is not one of them.
I predict that we will continue to see “global initiatives” taken in the name of “global warming” even though the data does not support the theory (or falsehood or lie or whatever you want to call it). There are simply too many people, powerful and influential people, who are unwilling to eat crow.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Prayer at the Illinois House of Representatives
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Principles of Pragmatism – An Oxymoron
We have heard our new President clearly outline the principles that will guide his decision making and how he plans to govern.
For example, President Obama told the American people that he was ordering higher ethical standards for lobbying. "If you are a lobbyist entering my administration," Obama said, "you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years." I applauded his principle.
But now that the campaign is over with victory in hand; now that the celebrations have died down, our President is showing his tendency to choose pragmatism over principle.
Case in point, President Obama quickly appointed William Lynn as deputy secretary of defense—despite the fact that, until very recently, he had been a lobbyist for Raytheon, one of the nation's biggest defense contractors, right up until the time he was appointed. What happened to the principle of a two year waiting period?
When the press challenged him on this, Obama said Lynn was uniquely qualified to do the job, so he issued a waiver. How was he uniquely qualified? He knew how the system worked.
Pragmatism trumped principle. Expedience overtook doing what is right. The end justifies the means.
President Obama used the same argument for his choice of Tim Geithner to be our Treasury Secretary. Geithner, as we all know, neglected to pay $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years. Senator Robert Byrd—a member of Obama's own party—called Geithner's behavior "inexcusable negligence." Words, I'm sure, we would all hear from the IRS if we had failed to pay our taxes.
Again, pragmatism trumped principle.
The message Obama is sending to our kids is: "If you're smart, qualified, and know how to play the game, its okay to be unethical."
Let's be honest – character and principle don't matter in our society. You can be considered a good president and cheat on your wife. You can become head of the government's treasury and cheat on your taxes. You can get appointed to a Senate seat by an ousted governor whose middle name is synonymous with corruption. You can be a president who runs on the mantra of change, but can't stand up to your own party based on you own so-called principles. You can say what want and do something completely different – pragmatism over principle.
I am deeply concerned about the pragmatic path of our President – for pragmatism is a mere form of postmodern, humanistic relativism.
It is important that we continue to pray for the President, that he will uphold the principles that have made this nation strong.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wind Energy is a Bunch of Hot Air
I am all for renewable energy and a clean earth. But let's not check our brains at the door.
Pres. Obama says he wants to double our renewable energy supply. Okay, I'm fine with that, but that's nothing new. Former Pres. Bush accomplished just that from 2005-2007. Amazingly, we didn't here about that in the press. So really what Pres. Obama wants to do is keep pace with Bush. Good for him.
Now, here's the reality check. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the total solar and wind output for 2008 produced about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption. Doubling it won't make a dent in our energy supply.
You say, "Well, doubling it can't hurt." You would be right, but that's like saying opening lemonade stands on every corner and giving the money to Fedzilla will bring down the national debt. It's worthy...can't hurt...might make us all feel good..., but it would come close to solving our energy needs.
The truth is that wind and solar energy is an inadequate and unreliable source for our energy needs. The Institute of Energy Research reports that "typical statements about how a wind unit can produce enough electricity to serve a large number of homes are misleading" (www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/facts-on-energy-wind).
What's the solution? Nuclear power - it's mega-efficient, clean (even the waste can be reused), and get this - it costs less per kilowatt than all the others cost (wind, solar, coal, natural gas, and oil).
Note: You may have heard that wind power is more cost effective, but what you're not being told is that it can only match nuclear power efficiency when it is subsidized by the government.
Forget the lemonade...let's have some yellow cake!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What’s the world coming to?
- “I’ll tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they are, it’s going to be impossible to buy a week’s groceries for $20.”
- “Did you hear the post office is thinking about charging a dime just to mail a letter?”
- “If they raise the minimum wage to $1, nobody will be able to hire outside help at the store.”
- “When I first started driving, who would have thought gas would someday cost 29 cents a gallon? Guess we’d be better off leaving the car in the garage.”
- “Did you see where some baseball player just signed a contract for $75,000 a year just to play ball? It wouldn’t surprise me if someday they’ll be making more than the President.”
- “I never thought I’d see the day all our kitchen appliances would be electric. They are even making electric typewriters now.”
- “The drive-through restaurant is convenient, but I seriously doubt they will ever catch on.”
- “If they think I’ll pay 50 cents for a haircut, forget it.”
Friday, January 23, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - III
A History Lesson, Part III
Why are many Western nations (including the U.S.) supporting Israel?
Some are sympathetic for the orphaned nation (Israel). Their existence and right to live in the land under their own form a government – one cannot deny. Anti-Semitism over the centuries cries out for mercy and justice. Western nations, including the U.S., generally respond to the needs of the oppressed.
The problem lies in identifying the oppressed and the oppressor. Who was there first? Who fired first? Who deserves retribution? How much retribution is warranted? What about the protection of innocent civilians on both sides? To whom should we be more sympathetic?
Guilt plays a part of the equation as well. The Holocaust and the guilt over other periods of mistreatment of the Jewish people (sometimes at the hand of Christians) have sparked a kind of Zionism. We feel somewhat responsible for the difficult plight of the Jews and so take interest in the state of Israel.
Some support the Israelis because they have a strong personal disdain for Muslims. They see Muslims (75% of Palestinians) as the enemy, and have an "any enemy of the Muslims is a friend of mine" attitude.
It's important to note that the most recent fighting in Gaza was provoked by Hamas, the ousted political party/terrorist group whose charter calls for the defeat of Israel. One can barely fault Israel for wanting to defend themselves. In fact, many Western nations support Israel today as part of the global fight against terrorism.
Now, fuel each of those reasons to support Israel (and there are several more) with a dose of biblical prophecy. Christians, particularly those who hold to a Pre-millennium Dispensationalist view of end-times, place great emphasis on the restoration of Israel and the re-establishment of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Does the Bible predict a restored Israel and Temple? Or has the Jews "chosen" status as the people of God ended?
Jesus is the Answer
There are many questions, but really just one answer – Jesus Christ. I know that some, particularly in the political world, would call that naïve, but it's the truth. Only through the power of the cross and Christ can the two be completely reconciled (Ephesians 2:11-22).
Let us pray for peace in the Middle East, but more importantly, let us pray that they (Jews and Gentiles) would come to know Christ as Lord and Savior.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - II
So whose land is it anyway?
The Israelis claim historical rights to the land and a divine mandate given to Abraham to possess it (Genesis 12 & 17). They claim that the Canaanites consisted of various people groups who happen to dwell in the land, but were not really organized occupants. So, the Jews say they possessed the land first. Palestinians claim more recent possession of the land and Palestinian Muslims add a divine mandate of their own saying they have the latest and greatest revelation from God. In their view Mohammed is greater than Moses and Jesus, so their claim trumps Israel’s.
Religiously, the Muslims have no basis to claim they were there first, because Islam wasn't founded until after the Holy Lands had been occupied by both Jews and Christians. Unable to make a religious claim to the land, some Palestinian leaders have attempted to draw an ethnic or racial connection between themselves and the Canaanites. However, it would be difficult, if not impossible; to prove which Arabs are directly connected to the Canaanites.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians make a strong argument on the point of most recent possession. Can another people group return to their ancestral land centuries after losing it and succeed in establishing its rightful claim? How would you feel if descendants of the early settlers of Salem came into town and claimed your property, saying they were here first? Chances are you would fight them (in the courts, of course).
That’s what Israel did in 1948 and in the process displaced 700,000 Palestinians to make room for the new state. And now we see the Palestinians trying to do the same to Israel. The word “displaced” may not be the best word to use because both Jews and Palestinians have been in the land all along – no one really leaves. One is in power – the other lives under “enemy” occupation.
The balance of power boils down to numbers and external support. Currently, the Jews have the numbers. Within Israel's borders, 80 percent (5.64 million) of the population is Jewish, 19 percent (1.39 million) is Muslim and roughly 1 percent is Christian. In Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), largely controlled by Palestinians, the population is 75 percent Muslim and 17 percent Jewish. Israel slightly has the upper hand, but the number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is growing rapidly.
It’s obvious that the balance of power in the Middle East is extremely unstable. Woodrow Wilson said, “Friendship is the only cement that will ever hold the world together. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized peace.”
(to be continued)
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Peace in the Middle East - I
A History Lesson, Part I
I had a few people ask me about the current fighting in Gaza. They had good questions – the answers of which I'm not sure I have, but perhaps a little history lesson will help sort through the mess.
Some say the struggle is about religion? Religion plays a part, but not all Arabs are Muslims and many Jews no longer practice Judaism as a religion, nor are they even looking for the Messiah – they are secular Jews. It's difficult to say it's about religion.
Is it racial? Yes, indeed. There is a lot of racial and tribal tension in that region.
Is it about land – a relatively small piece of real estate bordered by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea? Palestinians and Jews both claim the land as theirs. Israel claims they were there first. The Palestinians say it's a matter of who has controlled the land most recently and for the longest time. History can be cited to support and defeat both claims.
Whether it's religious, racial, about land, oil, or any combination of those, the Middle Eastern conflict between Arabs and Jews will be a tough nut to crack. If I were to pick one of the three, I would say the current conflict in the Middle East is about land, which has been contested for thousands of years.
Each side points to different time periods to stake their claim, but they ignore all other times. Both sides agree the land's history begins with early civilizations thousands of years ago. The first known inhabitants were the Canaanites, a collection of Semitic people who developed complex societies administered through city-states. The Canaanites, according to biblical and historical records, worshipped fertility gods and used sex and mystical wizardry in their religious rites. The Old Testament condemns those practices as "detestable to the Lord."
The Bible says the children of Israel, acting on the promise of God, took possession of the land from the Canaanites. For the next 500 years, Israel flourished and expanded under the leadership first of judges and later kings such as Saul, David and Solomon. David made Jerusalem Israel's capital around 1000 B.C., and Solomon built the first temple there around 960 B.C.
By 720 B.C., however, Israel had been crushed by the Assyrians, and 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel were lost in the ensuing dispersion. The remnant of Jewish people held on to parts of the land for several more centuries, suffering under the rule of Babylonians, Greeks, Hasmoneans and Romans. Israel held together in some form through the time of Christ until 70 A.D., when Roman troops destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people far and wide in what is known as the Diaspora. For the next 900 years, control of the Holy Land went back and forth between various occupying forces, including the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Christian Crusaders, the Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire.
Muslims were the third major religious entity to lay claim to the land, arriving as a distinct faith group in the seventh century A.D. Their founding prophet, Mohammad, was born in A.D. 570 and wrote the Koran in A.D. 610. By 691, Muslims had built the Dome of the Rock on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple. This is the third-most-holy site in Islam because according to Islamic tradition it is the site from which Mohammed ascended into heaven.
Jews and Muslims claim a common heritage through the patriarch Abraham, with Jews tracing their lineage and faith through Abraham's son, Isaac, and Muslims tracing theirs through Abraham's son, Ishmael. Jewish Scripture records Ishmael as the child of Abraham and his wife's servant, Hagar. Islam, however, considers Hagar Abraham's second wife.
Jews and Muslims co-existed in the land, although Muslims had the upper hand through most of the latter half of the first millennium after Christ. They coexisted largely because of outside domination and because the Jewish people had not yet begun returning to the land in large numbers.
Four hundred years of rule by the Ottoman Empire ended in 1917 with a British conquest, and the British prime minister pledging support for a "Jewish national home in Palestine." That never fully materialized, however, until after World War II and the Holocaust. European and American sentiment for a Jewish state led to concrete action. And that, imposed by the United Nations in 1948, set the stage for conflict that has raged between Arabs and Israelis until the present.
With consent from the British, the victors of World War II carved out a new Israeli state, hoping to create a place of refuge for persecuted Jews worldwide. To do this, however, they made hundreds of thousands of Palestinians homeless and not all too happy.