thinking…hazardous to your health

It’s nothing new really, to be persecuted for thinking – especially for pursuing, presenting, or defending truth.  It happened to the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, Paul, Luther, Copernicus, modern day missionaries such as Jim Elliot (in Eucuador), John and Betty Stam (in China), Vanya (of Russia), Richard Wurmbrand (in Romania), Rachel Scott (of Columbine High School), Martin and Gracia Burnham (in Philippines) and many many others.  Some of these people lived to tell their stories.  Some didn’t and were willing to pay the ultimate price for truth.  I’ve been inspired lately with people who are not afraid to pursue and/or present truth – no matter the cost.  

So, no – I’m not obsessed with the global warming issue but I do care about it.  Why?  Because this whole controversy has me thinking.  Thinking about why people do or do not care about truth.  Some people are willing to die for it and some are willing to kill to keep it hidden.  This issue just serves as a reminder, however, that truth is not high on the list of priorities of our society today.  Power, money, and fame are much higher on their list. 

I recently heard Canadian Professor Timothy Ball being interviewed on the radio by Glenn Beck and just had to share this related article.  He has actually received death threats for considering the “other side” of the presently clouded issue of global warming! 

I would love to have the transcript of the radio interview for it gave some really good insight as to the racket the politicians, scientists, and environmentalists have created with ideas about global warming.  They gave lots of interesting facts about a specific document produced (by the United Nations’ IPCC I’m guessing) -why it says what it does and why the scientific portion of it was added last, etc.   Perhaps I can get a list of the things they mentioned and share it on here sometime. 

This is just an example of what happens when people refuse to examine truth.  The Bible says people who rejected God “became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became as fools.”  [Romans 1:21b-22]  People are walking in darkness and they don’t even know it!  What’s even worse is that they’re afraid to examine what they believe.  Oh, God, don’t ever let me become so wrapped up in my little frame of reference that I’m afraid to examine truth – Your truth!  What could be lost in pursuing truth except error and a little pride.  What’s that in light of truth!  I Thessalonians 2:10b-11 says “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”  Let me love the truth – which is Christ and all He embodies.  May I never lose the love for the truth that I should believe a lie.  Don’t be afraid of the truth! 

For those of you who are interested here is an article about the previously mentioned Professor Ball. 

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007



Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Click here for the article online.




power, money and fame vs. truth (aka global warming debate)

For all you who care about the global warming issue and those of you who don’t…this is worth reading.   

Must-See Global Warming TV

Thursday, March 15, 2007

By Steven Milloy

As Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” becomes mandatory viewing for many
U.S. school children and nears becoming the “official truth” about global warming, it comes as most welcome news that an absolutely gripping film rebuttal has made its international debut, much to the chagrin of true believers in man-made climate change.

Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.

The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at

According to the film, the origins of global warming alarmism had its roots in the 1970s-era fears of global cooling and an impending ice age, resulting from the 1940-1970 global temperature decline. Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin suggested at the time that man-made greenhouse gas emissions might offset the cooling by warming the atmosphere.

When Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister in 1979, her mandate was to reduce
Britain’s economic decline. Thatcher wanted to make the UK energy-independent through nuclear power – she didn’t like her country’s reliance on coal, which politically empowered the coal miner unions, or oil, which empowered Middle Eastern states.
So Thatcher latched onto Bolin’s notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide warmed the planet in a harmful way, thereby providing the perfect political cover for advancing her nuclear power agenda without having to fight the miners or Arab oil states.She empowered the U.K. Meteorological Office to begin global climate change research, a move that eventually led to the 1988 creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ group that has come to be the “official” international agency for global warming alarmism.

At about the same time, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explains on-camera, environmentalism became more extreme. By the mid-1980s, environmental goals – e.g., clean air and clean water – had become so mainstream that activists had to adopt more extreme positions to remain anti-establishment.

Then when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, many “peace-niks” and political activists moved over to environmental activism, bringing their “neo-Marxist” political philosophy with them. As Moore puts it, environmentalism became the “new guise for anti-capitalism.”

Global warming alarmism was thus borne from this combination of official British policy, environmentalism’s rejection of its own success and political opportunism by “unemployed” left-wing political activists.

With such an inglorious heritage, it’s no wonder the scientists in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” have little trouble dismantling climate myths.

Perhaps the most important bit of scientific knowledge presented is the actual relationship between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

In “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore disingenuously describes the relationship as “complex” while implying that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause higher global temperatures.

But according to the geological record and data from ice cores, higher temperatures actually precede higher carbon dioxide levels by about 800 years. Twentieth century data support this idea in at least two ways. First, most of the 20th century’s warming occurred before 1940, while most of the century’s greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940.

Next, when manmade greenhouse gas emissions soared in the post World War II industrial boom, global temperatures declined until the mid-1970s, leading to the aforementioned global cooling concerns.

The Channel 4 program notes that ongoing temperature measurements contradict global warming theory. According to the theory, lower atmosphere temperatures should be warming at a much faster rate than those at the Earth’s surface. In reality, however, just the opposite is occurring.

Then there’s the sun – the gigantic yellow ball in the sky that climate alarmists want all of us to ignore in favor of minute emissions of an invisible gas that makes up less than one-half of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. As it turns out, solar activity – unlike atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – correlates quite well with historic temperature changes, including through its effects on cosmic rays and clouds, as the film demonstrates quite effectively.

So why does the world seem to be caught up in the vise-like grip of a controversy that is contradicted by available scientific data and its own dubious heritage?

According to the scientists in the movie, there is an intolerance of dissent on global warming. Official government sanction of global warming opened the floodgates of funding to climate researchers, who previously worked in obscurity.

NASA scientist Roy Spencer says in the program that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money with then flow to climate scientists.”  University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”

The film also debunks the IPCC claim that the 2,500 scientists contributing to its reports also support its alarmist conclusions. One key IPCC contributor for example, the Pasteur Institute’s Paul Reiter, threatened to sue the IPCC if the group didn’t remove his name from a chapter with which he disagreed.

When I met Al Gore in January 2006 after a presentation of his climate slideshow, I asked him if he’d be interested in setting up a public debate between climate scientists. He declined – twice. At this point, I’d settle for a movie face-off – “An Inconvenient Truth” vs. “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”

Let the public see both sides of the story and then we’ll see who’s believable and who’s not.

Steven Milloy publishes and He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.,2933,258993,00.html

scenes from Arbys – a visit with the Webbs

Our family and church friends enjoyed spending time with the Webb family who came to visit last weekend.  It was such a pleasure to spend time with them.  Too bad I didn’t get pictures from our picnic at the park the following day! 

Here are a few shots from our midnight snack at Arbys after church.

Dad and Mom

 The handsome couple – my parents!  (Don’t know why the suit coat looks like that!)

Gina and Rachel

Gina and I in conversation after church


  Adorable baby Hannah Olivia! 


Micaiah and I pose for a picture together!

Hope you guys made it home safely today!