Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (3)


We’re not cult, we’re serious followers of science!

Environmentalism Becomes a Cult (1)

Can a movement that claims to be “scientific” actually be a “cult?”  This post will begin to explain why I think the answer is a definite yes for environmentalism.  Note that at this point I haven’t modified “cult” with “death,” but this will come in good time.

Environmentalism is not “Scientific”

For something to actually be “scientific” it must adhere with reasonable fidelity to the “scientific method.”  Most of the general public who harangue us climate change skeptics have no understanding of the scientific method.  So, I’ll start by the subversive tactic of education.  Here is a good definition of the scientific method.

screen shot 2019-01-08 at 5.15.17 am

Although the entire definition is important to understand I’m going to focus on the key phrase “experimentation to the truth of falseness of the hypothesis.”  A “hypothesis” is defined by Google as:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

If the hypothesis of “climate change” or “global warming” were scientifically assessed it would have been discared long ago.  Here are a few reasons why.

Falsified Predictions

One of the most compelling means by which a hypothesis can transition to a credible theory is by demonstration of predictive power.  That is, before an event occurs it can accurately predict the outcome.

More Numerous and Powerful Hurricanes


More frequent and powerful hurricanes are coming due to “global warming”!  What?  Never mind, nothing to see here!

Do you remember the hysteria-mongering of the “global warming” community following the tragic Hurricane Katrina disaster?  Let this remind you.

“I think the biggest lesson from Katrina a year later is that those same ingredients, you know, a city below sea level hit by a major hurricane, will be replicated by global warming all along our Atlantic and Gulf Coast lines,” Tidwell said on August 24, 2006.

CBS anchor Russ Mitchell predicted that there would be “continued high levels of hurricane activity and high levels of hurricane landfalls for the next decade or perhaps even longer.” “For years now, experts have been saying we’ve entered a period of increased hurricane activity that may last a long time.” (September 22, 2005)

On September 18, 2005, Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, “scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.”

So, these climate scientists were undeniably making predictions based on their theories of global warming.  So, you might ask, how accurate were their predictions?

As the years passed, the more obvious it was that fewer major hurricanes were hitting land. In April 2015, the American Geophysical Union reported that the United States has been in a nine year Atlantic hurricane landfall drought. A record low. AGU said, “Such a remarkable ‘hurricane drought’ has never been seen before – since records began in 1851 … the last major hurricane – of Category 3 or higher – to make landfall in the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma in 2005.”

So, did the climate change community own up to this pathetic predictive failure?  No, they simply pretended it never happened and hoped the rest of us would not notice.

The Ice Caps are Disappearing


Look! A polar bear is on ice!  That’s irrefutable scientific proof for “global warming”!

The “climate change” hysterics have also been predicting that “global warming” is causing the polar ice caps to melt.  However, in 2015 data from NASA satellites debunked this prediction.

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.


We were prevented from proving that the ice caps are melting by unexpectedly thick ice!  But it’s because of “climate change”!

We also have what could go under reality making satire obsolete, as scientists saying into the arctic ice sheet to prove it is melting…but with embarrassing results.

Scientists who cancelled their Arctic expedition due to thick ice conditions haves an interesting excuse for why they had to abandon their research project — climate change. …

Barber’s expedition set out in late May after being caught in 25-foot thick ice off the northern coast of Newfoundland. The expedition was forced to turn back after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a four-year project to study the effects of global warming on Hudson Bay.

Now, Barber and fellow researchers are blaming their botched expedition on global warming, or climate change, as they call it.

Their evidence? Not much, except the opinions of some scientists involved — at least, The Guardian didn’t present any evidence otherwise. The paper just assumed climate change was the culprit.

So, did the climate change community own up to this pathetic predictive failure?  No, they simply pretended it never happened and hoped the rest of us would not notice.

Global Temperature is Significantly Rising

The very term “global warming” contains a falsifiable hypothesis.  For, if the empirical data shows that the earth isn’t actually warming at anything near the rate predicted (or even at all) then the hypothesis has been disproved.    And, wouldn’t you know it, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed papers at a high rate that are not supportive of the “global warming hypothesis.”

temperatures-global-real-proxy-steiger-17Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years.
Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

This is a big problem for “global warming” hysterics.  The real world data wasn’t following the predictions of their computer models (recall the discussion in this post).  Something had to be done to keep the multi-billion dollar government funded gravy train running.

So, between 2008 and 2009 the previously dominant term “global warming” was replaced by a new dominant term, “climate change.”  And, as I’ll discuss in the next post, this is when all pretense to “science” was dropped and environmentalism became a cult.


Wishing You a Blessed Christmas!

God-with-usFor to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
 Of the greatness of his government and peace
    there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
    and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
    with justice and righteousness
    from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
    will accomplish this.

(Isaiah 9:6,7)

The Christian Church in Revolutionary Times (2)

identityWhat is the Core Issue?

At the top level this potential revolution is about the clash between a Progressive “elite” ruling class and the “commoners” who do not wish to be ruled by them.  However, the deeper issue is how the concept of identity is understood and put into practice.

The Progressives see culture and politics through the lens of victimhood.  Therefore, individuals are organized into victim groups who have suffered oppression.  Because of this oppression a powerful government operated by morally superior people is necessary to protect and advance the interests of the victims.  This ideological system is often described as “identity politics.”  That is, by asserting identity as a member of or a champion for a victim group one obtains moral standing to exert power over those others who are the designated victimizers.  Power over the victims is also obtained, since it is only by submitting to the designated ideology that victims can earn protection.

Commoners have tended to define themselves by associations and interests outside the realm of politics.  To them, though politics may be an important part of life, other domains like faith, family, neighbors, sports, etc. have clear priority.  Commoners see themselves as part of a common heritage and culture.  Thus, they have appreciation for the nation and those through whom it was formed and maintained.  This appreciation often finds its voice through concepts such as adherence to our Constitution and other founding documents of the nation.

As a consequence of the Progressives so aggressively organizing around “identity politics,” the commoners who find themselves under siege as the designated evil victimizers have also began to organize under a group identity.  The most common form is to claim the Hillary Clinton insult of “deplorables” for themselves as a badge of honor.

Thus, the forces unleashed with our nation are driving people into opposing identity camps where good and evil exist not within each human heart but rather are the uniform attribute of each tribe.  If you are a Progressive then virtually all good exists within your camp and all bad in the other.  And, to an increasing extent, commoners/deplorables are engaging in this same theory of moral distribution (obviously with the roles reversed).

This dynamic is a key reason why the possibility for civil, reasoned discussion is shrinking at an alarming rate.


iBook Publish Announcement: The Language of Suffering

Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 5.09.24 AMI have published an eBook on iBooks.  If you do not use an iOS device, a PDF version can be found on this blog’s “Document Repository” page using this link.

The Language of Suffering

We have all experienced suffering. Too often though, we leave unexamined the spiritual implications of these difficult life events. In this book we will seek to gain an understanding of suffering within the framework of God’s will through a topical study of Scripture. In the process, we may begin to place our own experiences within the context of a Christian mystery that delivers redemption from affliction, hope from anguish, and power from weakness.


Glimpses into the Progressive Psyche (5)

MargaretThatcher-PersonalAttacksThe Politics of Personal Destruction

The Encounter

I’m not going to dwell on the personal aspects of this encounter because what troubles me is less the incident itself than what is behind its occurrence.  Suffice it to say that I was in a debate regarding the PCUSA’s ordination of practicing homosexuals that turned into a vicious attack on my motives and character.  That is, because I was making the case that public unrepentant sin (in any dimension of Christian life) disqualified a person from ordination, I was accused of purposefully inciting hatred of and violence (including torture and murder) on homosexuals.  I was also accused of wishing such evil things to happen to homosexuals.  As with the case of the previous post, I forcefully and effectively repulsed these vile accusations.  But the fact that they were confidently made by a person with good standing in a Christian community is indeed troubling in profound ways.

The Implications

How, I wondered, could an individual with whom I had spent significant time have been spun up into an emotional state that justified such conduct?

Firstly, it shouldn’t have been a surprise that such conduct occurred.  For I had it on the authority of an overture from the Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago titled “On honoring Christ in our relationships with one another” that this is was indeed the case.  This overture almost perfectly described my experience.

Some Presbyterians read the Scriptures to condemn all forms of same-gender sexual intimacy, and sometimes accuse other Presbyterians of abandoning the authority of Scripture, ignoring the need for repentance, and leading persons into serious sin.

Some Presbyterians read the Scriptures to bless committed same-gender relationships, and sometimes accuse other Presbyterians of bigotry, responsibility for bullying and suicides, and other harm caused by anti-gay attitudes.

The primary deviation is that I argued that God created male and female to be bound together by marriage, and, that this pattern for human relationship was instituted for our best good (see Matthew 19:4-6).  Thus, homosexual relationships by deviating from this God-ordained pattern are not serving our best good, and, fall under the category of sin.  I also regularly stated that Christianity had erred greatly by treating homosexuality to be a sort of “super-sin” that was worse than most other sins.  This is a position far short of “condemnation,” though it does maintain the boundary between righteousness and sin.

In my commentary from 2012 I focused on the issue of equivalence between these two positions, stating that:

A careful examination of the preceding two paragraphs’ content and relationship is called for. To begin, they apparently are designed to constitute the relevant end-points for comments that are deemed to be vilifying. Therefore, they would appear to be intended as equivalent.

But whereas the first paragraph describes a critique of the arguments of others, the second paragraph describes conclusions about other’s motives and culpability for acts of violence. The difference is striking, and disturbing. Apparently, to make a case for the authority of Scripture, the need for repentance and the seriousness of sin is an act of vilification. One is left to wonder under just what terms the authors propose to pursue “respectful dialogue,” when the central concerns of those opposing the current ordination standards are made equivalent to character assassination and accusation of fomenting violence.

This is the very dynamic within which I found myself.  However, over six years later I have come to believe that there is a second issue at play that had previously eluded my consciousness, that being incitement.

Note the order of the Rationale’s set up.  First, a Presbyterian makes the case for the orthodox understanding of Biblical authority, sin and repentance.  Second, the response is accusations of bigotry and culpability for violence.  In this ordering the Rationale makes the implicit case that it is the voicing of the first position that incites the second.

There is another great advantage to this ordering.  Consider the encounter from a third party’s point of view.  One Presbyterian says something to another and the response is an angry rebuke.  The uninformed assumption will often be that the first speaker must have said something very bad to elicit such a strong reaction from the second.  Even if the viewer is well informed, it is the first speaker who appears to have “started it.”  Finally, responding with anger and vile accusations discouraged orthodox Christians from voicing their views at all.

Thus, there existed a Progressive group in the PCUSA who considered the open argument for orthodox Christian positions on sexual sin and repentance to be an approval of hatred toward and violence against homosexuals.  They also saw the statement of these views to be an incitement.  With this mindset wouldn’t it be immoral not to confront the offending party for their assumed evil conduct?

I believe that this is what happened to me on that painful day.  In their eyes it wasn’t that I had a different understanding of the Bible’s teaching.  It was that I was a hateful, violence approving bigot who was camouflaging their evil in Biblical terms.  It was high time that someone called me out, and this person stepped up to do just that.  I should be personally destroyed because I was a vile, evil person.

Had I argued on their terms I might well have exited the debate personally destroyed.  But, I rather responded by pointing out the absurd cruelty and baseless justification for arguing along these lines.  Once they were forced into the position of explaining why such accusations were being made the bottom fell out.

So, yes, I survived this onslaught against my motives and character.  However, this and other similar experiences profoundly affected my understanding ofattitude towards and response to those in the Progressive camp who imagined themselves to to be at the pinnacle of Christian virtue.

Christian Hymns


Opening Thoughts

I have long thought that there is a wondrous but underappreciated reservoir of Christian beauty and wisdom in our classic hymns.  Therefore, I will occasionally turn my attention to information about and meditations on this topic.


resurrectionNext comes the resurrection from the dead. Without this what we have said so far would be incomplete. For since only weakness appears in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, faith must leap over all these things to attain its full strength. We have in his death the complete fulfillment of salvation, for through it we are reconciled to God, his righteous judgment is satisfied, the curse is removed, and the penalty paid in full. Nevertheless, we are said to ‘have been born anew to a living hope’ not through his death but ‘through his resurrection’ [I Peter 1:3]. For as he in rising again, came forth victor over death, so the victory of our faith over death lies in his resurrection alone. Paul better expresses its nature: ‘He was put to death for our sins, and raised for our justification’ [Rom. 4:25]. This is as if he had said: ‘Sin was taken away by his death; righteousness was revived and restored by his resurrection.’ For how could he by dying have freed us from death if he had himself succumbed to death? How could he have acquired victory for us if he had failed in the struggle? Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation between Christ’s death and resurrection as follows: through his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that–thanks to his resurrection–his death manifested its power and efficacy in us.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xvi.13.


Good Friday

CB03_1920x1080Lest in the unmeasured abundance of our riches we go wild; lest, puffed up with honours, we become proud; lest, swollen with other good things – either of the soul or of the body, or of fortune – we grow haughty, the Lord himself, according as he sees it expedient, confronts us and subjects and restrains our unrestrained flesh with the remedy of the cross.

John Calvin: Institutes 3.8.5