Climate Change

Every generation is subjected to an endless stream of terrifying prophesies of catastrophes that will destroy the earth. If a comet doesn't get us, an ice age will, if an ice age doesn't get us, a hole in the ozone layer will, if the ozone layer doesn't get us, global warming will. And so it goes on, generation after generation, ad nauseum. This media powered merry-go-round of earth doom is promoted primarily through newspapers, television, Hollywood, music, art, literature, and school classrooms. A recent hot topic has been global warming.

It isn't that long since it was prophecies of an impending ice age we were all shivering over. Check out these Roman truths from the 1970s.

Does anyone remember the ozone layer breaking down? Where did all the front-page news reports and scientific studies on that disappear to? How does all this earth doom stuff stand up to the word of God anyway?

The devil is the god of this world for the time being, that is true and undisputed. However, there is a rather important distinction to be made here - he does not own the earth. Ownership of the earth is still with the true God. The title deeds of the earth were never transferred to Adam and Eve so man never owned the earth - he was simply its caretaker, its manager, its CEO, its Lord. The devil could not take the title deeds of the earth from Adam and Eve because they did not have them. The earth belonged to God before the fall of man, the earth belonged to God after the fall of man, and the earth still belongs to God today. All the devil took was the manager's job, and the benefits that went with it. The earth is not the devil's property, he is merely in charge of how it is governed. If the god of this world owned the earth, there would be no life on it because the true God would be unable to protect us environmentally. God is still very much the earth's owner, so he is still very much in control of how it operates despite the current management.

Psalm 47:9
The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.

The shields of the earth mentioned in Psalm 47 refer to the defences of the earth. A shield is a defence. Warriors of old used shields to deflect arrow, sword, axe, and lance strikes. The shields of the earth refer to the earth's defences, which deflect anything that would harm it. God put the shields of the earth, the defences of the earth in place, and his word assures us that these shields are more than adequate for the job for which they were designed. In other words, there is nothing in the universe that is going to penetrate the earth's defences and render the planet dysfunctional. The shields of the earth are impregnable.

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

For example, it is a well-known astronomical phenomenon that the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter deflects comets and space debris that may be on a collision course for earth and draws them safely into orbit around the sun. Indeed, such is the power of Jupiter's gravitational pull that comets have been observed in recent times to strike the planet itself! Earth is in no danger from comet strikes because Jupiter makes sure of that, while our own atmosphere burns up any little stuff Jupiter doesn't take care of. God put the shields of the earth in place. That is it, end of story. The earth is not in any danger from anything. That is the testimony of God's word.

After the flood of Noah's time God made a promise.

Genesis 8:21,22
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Although these verses attribute the flood to God, we must remember what we learned in the book of Job regarding the idiom of permission. Just as the meanings of green and red traffic lights have not changed since we read Job, the truth that God is good and the devil is evil hasn't changed either. Compare these verses from Revelation.

Revelation 12:13-17
And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The dragon is a figurative reference to the devil, the god of this world. According to Revelation, who flooded the earth? The devil did. So when we read in Genesis that God did it, we have to understand it in light of the idiom of permission. This truth never changes throughout the entire word of God.

Back in Noah's day, the devil almost succeeded in destroying man from the face of the earth, thereby destroying the Christ line and preventing Jesus Christ from ever being born. Those who work for the god of this world think their god has their best interests at heart, but they are sadly deceived. His aim is the destruction of the human race, which includes those who work for him and worship him, as he almost succeeded in doing back in Noah's day. The true God can be trusted and wants to bless you with abundance in every category of life.

After the flood, God promised that never again would the earth become uninhabitable for man. It is not going to happen. God is faithful to his word and he keeps his promises. God even gave us a visible sign to remind us of this promise.

Genesis 9:11-17
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

I do set my bow in the cloud, [the rainbow] and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

The rainbow is a visible token of the promise God made to man back in Noah's time. And how fucking lame is it that the devil uses the colours of the rainbow to recruit homos and lesbians which will indeed be responsible for the extermination of millions of people. Rest assured though, God is faithful to keep his promises and the earth is not in any danger. The shields of the earth belong to God and nothing is going to get through them. That is the testimony of God's word.

Colossians 1:16,17
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The word consist would be better translated cohere. Cohere means to stick or to hold together. This earth, this planet we live on, is stuck together, held together by God. The shields of the earth belong to God. In other words, God has put in place an ecosystem with built in air conditioning that he has guaranteed will continue to function correctly regardless of anything man thinks he can do to mess it up. Of course, I'm not advocating irresponsibility here, not at all, the point I'm making is, even if we do abuse the environment and do our best to mess it up, the earth is still going to continue to function correctly. There is nothing man can do that will mess up the earth to the point it becomes non-functional. Hiroshima is prospering and doing just fine these days, ever noticed?

Hiroshima commons licence

So, if the earth is not in any danger from anything, then what is really behind climate change and environmentalism? First of all, either God's word is true or the devil's words are true. If you believe the world, you are deceived. The question is, why would the devil take so much trouble to convince us that we are destroying the earth when the earth isn't in danger from anything? So what is climate change about then? Whatever it is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the earth.

A brief summary of the hype surrounding global warming may give us some clues. To encapsulate, human beings are supposedly causing global warming because we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide is a gas which is causing the earth to warm up. Earth's icecaps will melt, polar bears will die, and entire cities will disappear under water. To prevent these disasters, radical changes are required to reduce the amount of man-made carbon dioxide that is being released. These radical changes include government control of carbon dioxide output enforced by International legislation and treaties to reduce what has been termed our carbon footprint. The situation is deemed so serious that individual nations are being urged to pass strict laws controlling carbon dioxide emissions. International treaties are to be signed and ratified hurriedly to ensure we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to safeguard our futures.

Hey, hang on a minute! Then why is China, an illegally occupied communist country for nearly a century, who forced the legitimate Chinese government into exile in Taiwan when the bastards took the country and murdered over 20 million Chinese, refusing to take any part in any measures whatsoever to curb so-called global warming? Incidentally, so do a few other illegally occupied communist countries, like North Korea. If global warming is such a problem, then why isn't the United Nations lecturing them about it? Do the communists stand to gain anything from all this? Keep that thought in mind because we will be back to it shortly.

Let's now take a quick look at the science behind global warming. For a start, there is no such thing as a determinable, measureable, precise, world mean temperature. No one knows the exact mean temperature of the earth. In fact, it is impossible to determine the mean temperature of the entire earth and, therefore, to calculate whether that temperature is rising or falling globally.

Secondly, it is impossible to determine how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, or how much of it is produced by man's activity. Carbon emissions cannot be stopped anyway, because every living thing on earth breathes out carbon dioxide. Surprisingly, no doubt to some, this carbon dioxide is required by plant life in order to grow and flourish. Through photosynthesis, plants convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and oxygen. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, all life on earth would die.

In 2009, the key players were in place in Washington and in state government across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws to tax Americans for their carbon footprints. However, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is a precious gaseous element that is very much needed in the atmosphere to sustain life. Without it, we would all die. It is beautiful stuff.

Thirdly, the global warming models and forecasts touted by the proponents of global warming are based entirely on mathematical models and scenarios that did not include such things as solar activity. Climate models can at best be useful only for explaining climate changes after the fact. Global warming and, indeed, global cooling are natural phenomena over which we have no control.

Not surprisingly therefore, there was an enormous surge of dissent among scientists worldwide regarding global warming. At a UN global warming conference in Poland in 2009 there were over 650 dissenting scientists from all parts of the world who criticized the climate claims made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. Many of these scientists were current and former UN IPCC scientists. That is over twelve times the number of UN scientists who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. Indeed, a few prominent scientists have warned that global warming is the most outrageous scientific scam the world has ever seen. Not a word of this was uttered on television, in our school classrooms, or in our newspapers.

Genuine science thrives on the quality of its data, as well as the replication and sharing of that data. In 2009, computer hackers obtained around 160 megabytes of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These emails, which were soon confirmed as authentic, brazenly discussed the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. Digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, flouted freedom-of-information laws, and even boasted about how they had suppressed hard questions about that data. The scientists and academics involved had all, not surprisingly, worked closely with the UN IPCC.

Climategate, as the affair came to be known, even affected Russia. The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report soon after these revelations claiming that the Hadley Centre for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Centre had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations made by the UN IPCC.

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the United Nations IPCC, made a shocking claim - the Himalayan glaciers could melt and disappear by the year 2035. These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's largest rivers and provide lifelines for millions upon millions of people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. A spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, stated, The deal reached at Copenhagen would have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.

It turned out that this report was based solely on a pamphlet published by the WWF itself, which was based on no science at all. When its background became known on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. And this, the guy who in 2007 on behalf of the IPCC picked up the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore, and stated that the decision to award the prize to the IPCC was a clarion call for the protection of the earth as it faces the widespread impacts of climate change, and who later described the genuine science that contradicted the myth of global warming as voodoo science.

Other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as illusory. For example, the IPCC warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reported The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Worse still, the Times discovered that Mr Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, had collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting - all on the strength of a fabricated glacier claim which was endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money.

As Christopher Booker wrote in the London Telegraph, a Canadian analyst identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC report that cited WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority. Similarly, the Times of London reported that the claim that global warming could endanger up to 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest came from an anti-smoking activist and had no scientific basis whatsoever.

In another episode, hurricane Katrina had hardly finished devastating New Orleans before a 'hurricane war' broke out among climate scientists. The proponents of global warming warned that Katrina was only the beginning, and that we would soon see superstorms of unprecedented fury. There was so little science to corroborate this outrageous theory that a furious Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, withdrew from his participation in the IPCC. Studies have since been published that finally disprove the supposed link between hurricanes and global warming. At first, the fear of monster storms seemed easily justified. Scientists conjectured that as the oceans became warmer, hurricanes would accumulate more energy. However, it is a known scientific fact that wind shear can destroy a hurricane at an early stage and the likelihood of wind shear increases in a warmer climate. For this reason, many computer models now point to a decline in hurricane activity should the earth actually become warmer. Note that this was not reported on television or in our newspapers, and no apologies for terrifying us with nonsense were ever issued.

Funnily enough, despite the whole global warming scam having been exposed, and the lies and treachery from within the UN and the IPCC fully documented, a few world leaders still flew to Copenhagen to attend the UN sponsored Copenhagen Climate summit in support of legislation curbing carbon dioxide emissions. That they attended this charade, which was nothing more than a UN press release, is a clear indication that those who think they control our lives know more about what's going on behind the scenes than they would have us believe.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly stated that climate change scepticism was treason and that we should treat sceptics as traitors. In 2007, the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen stated that meteorologists who were sceptical of manmade global warming should be decertified. The emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit prove rather that everyone behind the global warming scam are either grossly deceived or are indeed themselves traitors.

Incidentally, on the day the Copenhagen Climate Summit opened, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an endangerment to human health. Since we operate in an overwhelmingly carbon based economy, such jurisdiction would give the EPA regulatory control over practically everything - building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, and businesses. Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given power that is so intrusive of every aspect of economic life.

So what is the EPA and who controls it? President Obama appointed Lisa Heinzerling to be senior policy counsel on climate change at the EPA, a position that does not require confirmation. Heinzerling has argued that since global warming kills people, a failure to address it is tantamount to somebody not acting on prior knowledge that a homicide is going to take place.

Knowledge that death and suffering will result from our actions leads uncontroversially to a moral obligation to change our behavior, Heinzerling wrote in a 2008 article for the Georgetown Law Journal. In the United States, knowing killing is condemned in the criminal laws of all 50 states, in modern regulatory laws at the federal level, and in civil jury awards in tort cases. These laws embody a moral commitment against knowing killing that, in traditional criminal contexts, is uncontroversial. It should be no more controversial when it occurs on a global scale.

Subsequently the Obama administration took steps towards imposing federal limits on what they call climate changing pollution from cars, power plants, and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangered Americans' health. In reality, the only thing endangering Americans' health are the pollutants issuing from the lying mouths of those who promote global warming. Perhaps Heinzerling should argue instead against homosexuals who indeed knowingly inject lethal diseases into their partners.

Moreover, it isn't just America that is under attack. One of the ways the European Union plans to combat global warming is by switching food crops to bio fuels. Even the experts within the European Commission admit that in order to meet the EU's bio fuel targets they would eventually need almost all the food producing land in Europe to do so. Global warming is being used as a pretext to engineer famine in Europe as we speak.

Here is a scientific fact: greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them. Instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C it is +15° C. Of those greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide contributes about 10% of the effect, so that equates to around 3°. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions, if their science was correct.

However, the relationship isn't linear, it is logarithmic. What is the difference? As an example, human hearing is better measured on a logarithmic scale than a linear scale. As sound gets louder, we don't hear it in direct proportion to the volume. On a linear scale, a change between two values is perceived based on the difference between the values. A change from 1 to 2 would be perceived as the same amount of increase from 4 to 5. On a logarithmic scale, a change between two values is perceived based on the ratio of the two values. That is, a change from 1 to 2 would be perceived as the same amount of increase from 4 to 8.

Now here is the scary thing for those with eyes to see and ears to hear - plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. During the Dark Ages, the human race was within 30 ppm of extinction. Terrestrial life during the Dark Ages came close to being wiped out due to a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere! If plants were doing climate science instead of the UN IPCC, they would have an entirely different opinion about what constitutes a dangerous carbon dioxide level.

Global warming is scientific nonsense. Hurricanes were predicted to run rampant, they haven't, polar bears were all going to die, they are doing just fine, no cities are sinking beneath the oceans, none of the gloom and doom prophesied has taken place. This is an example of how the shields of the earth belong unto God. Nothing the devil or the United Nations on his behalf can do is going to get through those shields.

Now we must ask the question, why would the god of this world go to such lengths to create a scientific myth of such epic proportions? What is he really up to? Remember China? According to reams of independent surveys on the effects of the legislation to be introduced to tackle global warming, America's economic competitiveness would be severely damaged internationally and at home, principally by raising the cost of doing business to exorbitant levels relative to other countries that had no mandatory carbon emission policies. In effect, if all the carbon reduction legislation drawn up was put into place in America, American businesses and jobs would move oversees to China. This economic avalanche would tip the global economic balance in favour of China and other communist enemies of the United States, leaving America impoverished and vulnerable. This legislation, were it to be ratified and enforced, would mean the total restructuring of western industrial society, a venture that would cost trillions of dollars, while costing China nothing as she continued to increase her industrial output of CO2.

In 1997, the American Senate voted favourably 95-0 on the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which stated amongst other things, that the United States should not sign any international climate change treaty that would mandate greenhouse gas reductions without also requiring specific commitments from developing countries over the same compliance period that would result in serious economic harm to the United States. And isn't it interesting to note that China had the arrogance to publicly criticize some of the policies being pushed through the American political system regarding curbing global warming as being too weak. Interestingly, the accords failed at Kyoto and Copenhagen, primarily because the biggest growth in carbon dioxide production is from China.

If the earth isn't in any danger from anything, and global warming is a fabricated lie, and countries like China refuse to have anything to do with it, and as the communists stand to gain as America topples into an abyss of poverty and recession over it, then isn't it conceivable that global warming is in fact a weapon? The communists know they cannot take America militarily, so isn't it conceivable they would try other means to cripple and destroy her? Do we have enemies that hate us so much that they would assemble and detonate economic weapons of mass destruction among us? If you do not think so, then you have no concept of evil.

Consider this deeply - without question, one of the greatest security threats of an international climate treaty would be to degrade the economies of the United States and its allies to such an extent they would be deprived of the capability to defend themselves militarily. Our military forces are our largest consumers of fossil fuels in the world. Without fossil fuels, our military forces could not operate. Who stands to benefit from that? War is not waged exclusively on military battlefields.

The alarm over climate change is nothing more than an instrument of social control, a pretext for major business and political battle. The sweeping energy and global warming counter measures touted, including the so-called cap-and-trade bills, are nothing more than invented energy taxes designed to impose wide scale economic destruction through devastating energy price increases and consequent job losses. These bills contain regulations on everything from light bulb standards to the specifications of hot tubs, and they would completely reshape our western economies and impoverish us, turning us into third world countries while our communist enemies would flourish at our expense. The proponents of global warming argue that cap-and-trade is necessary to save the world, but they are liars and traitors because the world has never been in any danger from anything.

The same is true regarding the entire environmental and green movements. The earth is not in any danger from anything, so environmentalism is founded on lies and deception. The god of this world has only stealing, killing, and destroying in his heart when he moves his agendas. Wind farms mean no nuclear reactors. No nuclear reactors means no enriching of uranium. No enriched uranium means no nuclear weapons. It is our defences that are being systematically dismantled.

Environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet, it has everything to do with destroying us. The more green legislation that is passed through our parliaments and senates, the more costly it is for us to do business, the higher our fuel bills rise, the more we destroy our economies, the more we cannot afford our military, the more of our businesses move to China, the closer we come to ruin. We are on the brink.

Like global warming, environmentalism is an economic weapon of mass destruction. Check the money that founded and finances the worldwide environmental movement, and you will uncover not philanthropists who love you, but men with hatreds so passionate they seek only your destruction.

To sum up, there is no scientific data to prove that the earth is becoming warmer. The science we have been fed was manipulated and forged. UN scientists lied and the newspapers published their lies around the world. Global warming is entirely fabricated. Indeed, the most prominent proponent of global warming, Al Gore, is not even a scientist. His scurrilous television documentary was banned from being shown in British schools due to a lack of any scientific validity whatsoever. Would we go to our local double glazing salesman instead of our doctor for advice on a serious medical condition? Yet we allow pop stars, politicians and news editors to educate us on science?

Global warming is an economic nuclear weapon that was assembled to destroy us by swinging the balance of economic and military might to our enemies.

This is war.

Chapter 20 - Health and Nutrition