Monday, February 26, 2007

Opening Day for Cameron; More Gore Hypocrisy

Today is the day James Cameron will unveil the coffins of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene ("Jesus' wife"). Or so the story goes.

Cameron is billing this as "one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time" in advance of his Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Christ. Except that his findings aren't so much the result of archaeology as of moviemaker pseudo-science. The coffins were found some 27 years ago. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (who certainly have a vested interest in anything which disproves the Messiaship of Jesus Christ) stated at the time that there was little cause for interest because the names were so common at that time in history. According to the article, "a connection to the holy family was not made until 15 years later, when a film crew stumbled across the collection in a storeroom."

That's right. Archaeologists pretty much agreed then that there wasn't anything of interest...but then the "Reel Experts" arrived on the scene and saw an opportunity for a big story. Forget the fact that the same names had been found in other tombs before, or that Jesus' family were Galileeans with no real ties at all to Jerusalem (and therefore no reason to have been buried there). Never let facts get in the way of a good story (right Michael Moore?).

Fortunately, the real experts still agree that the idea "fails to hold up by archaeological standards" and regard Cameron's work as nothing more than an attempt to make money.

Just as with every other fraudulent, overzealous claim of proof against the Word of God, this too will eventually be exposed and summarily forgotten while the next one is sought out and brought forth.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Gore's unsurprising Oscar win last night the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued an interesting little press release showing that the Global Warming Alarmist Extraordinaire consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in an entire year. As expected, the liberal elitist expects you all to do all you can to conserve energy and reduce consumption while he uses 20 times the national average per year of electricity.

If I'm the equivalent of a Holocast Denier for my refusal to buy the pseudo-science of Global Warming, I should think that makes Mr. Gore a dirty war profiteer.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Gore: The Michael Moore of 2006

It's really too bad that Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, isn't properly categorized for what it truly is: science fiction. I'm certainly not the only person who knows that Gore's documentary has no real basis in scientific fact. But that didn't stop Michael Moore from getting all sorts of ridiculous praise for his conspiratorial liberal hit-piece, Farhenheit 911, which pushed even his bounds for credibility.

No doubt that many, including Gore himself, will take an Oscar as some sort of validation for his unscientific alarmist liberal propoganda. After all, he's never met a liberal soapbox opportunity he didn't like.
The Next Wave

Despite the enormous financial success of The Passion of the Christ almost three years ago, last year proved that an anti-Christian movie like The Da Vinci Code could also pull in some serious dough (to the tune of over $200 million). Unsurprisingly, more people are jumping on the anti-Christian bandwagon, the latest being James Cameron who is preparing a documentary claiming Jesus wasn't resurrected.

There is little doubt that this is a direct attempt to undermine Christianity. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear:

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ,
whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
" - 1 Cor 15:14-19 (ESV)

Without the resurrection of Christ, there is no Christianity. So it is no surprise at all that an unbelieving world would continue to launch attacks at this foundational doctrine. As it is, the last 150 years have seen postmodern liberalism slowly chip away at denominations preaching a false gospel that denies the deity of Christ and the historical reality of His resurrection.

Over the centuries, the science of archaeology has, despite numerous attempts from members of that field to let their personal philosophical and religious views affect and infect their work, overwhelmingly supported the biblical record time and again. There is in fact not a single thing in the Scriptures which has been proven false by archaeology. I doubt many even within the Christian community realize this, and if they did it would have them a lot more prepared for the publicity and open hostility to Christians and Christianity that is sure to come in the wake of Cameron's film.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Another Clinton Benefitting from Republican Economics?

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article on the current state of the US economy and the fact that the spending deficit is rapidly shrinking. Apparently, the increased tax revenue being generated by the overall strength of the economy is quickly erasing the budget defecits and projections are beginning to show coming surpluses.

Something you would never hear on the evening news of course is the fact that we are now in our sixth year of economic expansion. If that term sounds familiar, it's because it we were constantly reminded during the late 1990's of the fact that "President Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion in American history." Well, that economic expansion was the result of President Reagan's fiscal policies in the 1980's, and the only thing that kept that expansion from spanning both decades was the misguided economic planning of the first Bush Administration. President Clinton's tax-and-spend policies had little to do with the decline in the deficit of the early 90's.

So of course, we're now sitting in the middle of another economic expansion, born out of President Bush's "irresponsible" tax cuts in his first term, and just about the time the next Democrat is elected to the White House (I see little thusfar to lead me to believe a Republican can win thanks to the liberal media and the general lack of true conservative candidates) I'm sure we'll suddenly hear all about the progress the economy is making now that a Democrat is in office again.


Wednesday, February 14, 2007

An Inconvenient Irony

I could hardly contain the laughter when I read these two snippets from Drudge this morning:

Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

and even better...

Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...



Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Voices of Dissent from India, Colorado

Scientists in India have now added their names to the list of Global Warming Deniers, stating that "the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals."

Among the many attempts to bolster support of Global Warming Alarmism was the claim of the retreat of glaciers in the Himilayan ranges. The problem is that of the 9,575 glaciers in the Indian Himilayas, only 50...barely one half of one percent...have actually been the subject if individualized research. With respect to those 50, leading glaciologist VK Raina says that "nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers." Many other scientists from that area are agreeing with Raina's view as well.

Lest they be slandered by the Alarmists with the usual lies, the article goes on to describe how little pay these scientists receive, especially compared to those of other countries who are more vocally in support of Global Warming Alarmism. In other words, these scientists have no reason at all to state anything other than what they actually are observing. The same could hardly be said for "Hollywood" Al Gore and his militant Global Warming Alarmists.


Dixie Chicks Just Don't Get It

I haven't heard the Dixie Chicks' latest album, Taking the Long Way. You know...the one that swept the Grammy's this past weekend. I kinda liked the Dixie Chicks' music back when I first heard it. Then Natalie Maines decided to open her mouth in front of people and start talking about politics. I don't agree with what she said or the way she said it, so I stopped listening to her music. And according to her and many others, that is "unfair and unjust." In fact, some are saying that the decision by country music stations to stop playing their music is "not very American."

That leaves little doubt as to what side of the spectrum they hail from. Apparently, free speech is only free speech if you don't have any consequences at all. It doesn't seem to ever have occurred to Ms. Maines that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of responsibility for your words. You are free to say whatever you wish, but your words "can and will be used against you" in the court of public opinion. The Dixie Chicks do not have a divine right to have their music played over the airways, and therefore it is not "unjust" for stations to pull their music once they begin expressing their political opinions.

The Dixie Chicks are today's poster child for the entitlement mentality that is eating away at this country, and it goes hand in hand with the liberal drive to turn this democratic republic into a socialist state.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 12, 2007

Not the only one questioning Gore's sanity

(A bit of a delay on this one, but that's what happens when I don't check my drafts)

Posted on DrudgeReport 2/12/07:

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]


Saturday, February 10, 2007

Global Warming and the Holocaust?

It came as little surprise to me this morning to read a reporter form the Boston Globe claim that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."

Meanwhile, there is ongoing ignorance of the competing theories (which have much more actual scientific support) that it is in fact our own Sun and/or other cosmic rays which are chiefly responsible for the current global warming trend.

More to follow.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

"Hollywood" Al Gore's Convenient Lie

Perhaps to bolster his support for the Nobel Peace Prize (barf!), or because he's still sore about being unable to lawyer his way into the White House six years ago, Al Gore is now claiming that the President Bush's administration is paying scientists to dispute Global Warming.

Really? I'd LOVE to see some shred of proof supporting this claim from the Love-Canal-whistleblowing, Love-Story-inspiring, tobacco-harvesting creator of the Internet. And of course we know that the scientists and politicians who are on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon can't possibly be doing so because of the cash flowing in all over the place from environmental advocacy groups and lobbyists.

Please, Mr. Gore. It's bad enough that you are not practicing what you preach when it comes to energy conservation, but to use such underhanded smear tactics to attack anyone who dares threaten your cash cow is, while not at all unexpected from you, nevertheless weak and absurd.

Feel free to provide the evidence, Mr. Gore. But don't expect that you simply get a free pass from scrutiny of that evidence, even though you seem to expect all your lecture circuit "facts" will be taken at your word.

Labels: ,

Monday, February 05, 2007

"The Greatest Deception in the History of Science"

Hey, they aren't my words! These are the words of Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, who says that "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist."

Among the interesting tidbits in his article:

  • Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agrees that there is "no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change."
  • Back in the 70's, scientists like Lowell Ponte were saying the following about the supposedly irrefutable 'global cooling' occuring: "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species." Sound familiar?
What really strikes me about this article is not only how concisely and directly he addresses what those who dare speak against Global Warming are facing, but also how similar his arguments are to those Creationists and Intellegent Design proponents who dare to speak against Darwinian Macroevolutionism.

Labels: ,

Saturday, February 03, 2007

European Union Talks Big

French President Jacques Chirac has threatened to push for a tax against American goods if it doesn't sign liberal environmentalist "treaties" like Kyoto and other such agreements. It's admittedly a strong-arm tactic by the EU to force the United States into compliance, believing that it's status as the number one export market for American goods will carry enough weight.

I wish I could say "go ahead...and watch what we do in return" but I'm betting this will become a political issue rather than an economic one, and the liberals will twist it around to make claims such as "My conservative opponent supports economic policies that isolate us from world markets and cost us jobs." After all, that's exactly what they did with the bogus "tax cuts to ship jobs overseas" mantra of the 2004 election.

Labels: ,

This Will Only Hurt for a Second?

Well, my wife and I knew it was coming soon, and now the State of Texas has made it official: Texas is now requiring HPV vaccines for schoolgirls.

Why does this concern me? Because as parents it is OUR job to make decisions on what is and is not best for our children. I have some concerns about the vaccine itself, but my primary concern at the moment is that the government feels it has the right to make this decision for me.

At this point, Texas is allowing parents to opt their children out by "filing an affidavit stating that he or she objected to the vaccine for religious or philosophical reasons." That's fine, but how long will it be before it is considered like the polio vaccine (to which comparisons are already being made) and it is required or your child cannot attend public school?

As I stated, I have some concerns about this vaccine. For one, there have been no studies of the long-terms effects of the vaccine beyond 5-10 years. There have been virtually no studies of the effects on young girls. There is no indication of how long the vaccination lasts. There are more concerns as well (I apologize for the name of the blog this link references).

I do have concerns for my children as far as wanting to do what I can to keep my girls from getting cervical cancer, although it should be pointed out that cervical cancer is in rapid decline as far as occurances among women. But I absolutely refuse to have the government force my children to take a vaccine because a drug company lobbied and donated to get legislation passed to make it mandatory.

My children. My decision.

Labels: , ,