Sunday, October 14, 2007

13 Oct 2007 Behold, the storm of the LORD

Shalom in Christ Jesus,There is really no debate that we are witnessing more extremes on the earth in recent times, but there is nothing new under the sun and the earth has experienced greater extremes than these in the past. Just a quick reading of the book of Job confirms climate changes that have occurred in the Middle East since that book was written and creation science has shown that the times just after the flood were probably much more extreme than these times today.The problem we have today is faulty science and emotional driven theories masquerading as truth when the facts just don't back them up. But in today's world most people don't have time for facts, only emotion and feelings. Today's "enlightened" people generally refuse to reason or research an issue.Hopefully this alert on earth changes will help make this topic a little easier to understand. Realize that there are changes and extremes taking place but we must not jump to conclusions on the cause and always hold to the word of God. The bible states that these things will happen but they will be a result of judgment not global warming the way it's being passed off. If these governments are so concerned about global warming they should start with themselves and not the people, but they won't because this is just another tool for global control.

BE/\LERT!Scott Brisk



1) Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints


DAILY TECH - By Michael Asher - August 29, 2007

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
Read Full Report

No comments: