The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, said that based on new research over the last six years, it is 90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century.
Declaring that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the authors said in their "Summary for Policymakers" that even in the best-case scenario, temperatures are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level. A rise of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels would cause global effects — such as massive species extinctions and melting of ice sheets — that could be irreversible within a human lifetime. Under the most conservative IPCC scenario, the increase will be 4.5 degrees by 2100.1
God has said that it must get much worse before it gets better.
"90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most" means for at least more than half. If the argument is about less than half, the "90 percent" goes up. However, the entire scale is weighted way over to that humans are causing most of the warming. In other words, all things being equal, had humans not been polluting the atmosphere, it is likely according to the models that there would have been little to no warming.
There is absolutely no doubt that human-caused pollution is warning the atmosphere. The question is the percentage that is attributable to human causes and not whether or not.
There is no way that the scientists can model every variable in every possible combination. However, the trend lines are there for anyone to see. The trend lines based upon historical records are there for industrial growth, atmospheric pollution, and atmospheric warming. The predictions of those who recognized the coming problem are also there in the record. Those predictions are coming true. There are no other possible mundane causes. There is nothing in nature absent human causes that can explain the warming trend.
However, there are those who are greedy beyond the comprehension of the general population. These people pay people to manage mass perceptions. They put lies into the mix in order to distract people from what needs to be done.
We need sacred environmentalism, which is good stewardship of the cosmos starting at home: Earth. The environment is the Holy Temple of God after all. It has been manifested for our provisioning. We are obligated to take care of it unselfishly or else. This is why we have been endowed with our cerebral cortexes. We are to think.
Certain people however spend their energies thinking about ways to stop others from clear thinking. Their behavior in this regard is despicable. Leader of this pack is ExxonMobil.
ExxonMobil is to global warming what Monsanto is to terminator seed. ExxonMobil's hired guns are still saying as of today, Saturday, February 03, 2007, that it isn't sure that humans are causing global warming.
George C. Marshall Institute
Some critics, however, question the push for nationwide limits on emissions from power plants, automobiles and other industrial sources. At the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that receives funding from Exxon Mobil, chief executive William O'Keefe and President Jeff Kueter issued a statement urging "great caution in reading too much" into the report until the panel releases its detailed scientific documentation a few months from now.
"Claims being made that a climate catastrophe later this century is more certain are unjustified," they said, adding that "the underlying state of knowledge does not justify scare tactics or provide sufficient support for proposals . . . to suppress energy use and impose large economic burdens on the U.S. economy."
"Claims being made that a climate catastrophe later this century is more certain are unjustified." That is a monstrous statement. It comes directly from the serpent's mouth. These people at the George C. Marshall Institute think tank are bought and sold mouthpieces, minions of Satan. It is awful.
Woe to ExxonMobil. They are disregarding the warnings of the prophets. They and other oil giants have been fighting sound environmental practices since the beginning. All they have cared about is getting theirs while the world lasts, and they haven't cared much about how long that will be. What will they say if the world follows their advice and it is then unbearable? They will be responsible for the pain and suffering of everyone, because under that scenario, none would escape that tribulation except by death. No human technology would completely rescue them, would completely save them.
This is a damning indictment of ExxonMobil. However, ExxonMobil could very easily translate out of oil and into the forefront of alternative, clean, reusable, sustainable energy. They could invest their research and development budget in that direction. Rather though, they choose to do exactly the wrong things, such as pay people to do for them such reprehensible tasks as what the George C. Marshall Institute does.
ExxonMobil is murdering billions right now. They are doing the preventable that is maliciously poisoning the environment of people now and to come in the billions. They have malice in their hearts for the people else they could not do collectively what they are doing. If it were simply indifference, it would not be sufficient to drive a corporation to such evil.
The people who lead ExxonMobil and the other major corporations and their stockholders that are bringing the world massive pollution, war, famine, drought, pestilence, and divers evils, are their consequences. They are evil and need to repent immediately.
What are the devils planning to do to save themselves? They are holding their above top secret meetings. They are continuing their long-running discussions about sterilizing and wiping out billions of Third World people and the poor and underprivileged in the industrialized and industrializing nations. They are doing their cost-benefit analyses.
Remember, human beings on this level are mere animals to be done with just as the animals who are subjected to horrific treatment in the name of science and technology. This is why war is easy for them. This is why capital punishment and abortion are nothing for them.
The love of God is not in the hearts of these self-appointed, evil leaders. Don't follow them. Don't facilitate them.
Pray for them to see the light, to hear the real message of Jesus Christ sent by God to save the world. Pray for them to turn to righteousness (unselfishness) for their sakes and for the sake of the many. Pray for the end of greed, violence, and depravity on earth and in all human hearts. Pray for the blessings of unselfishness for all.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
What has been the false-conservative reaction in the US Congress? Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, is leading the charge against doing anything about human-caused global warming. Rohrabacher is attempting to protect his campaign contributors and those who will welcome him with open arms when he leaves the Congress. ExxonMobil and all the carbon suppliers are doing their darnedest to twist the perceptions of the people into not being convinced enough about carbon burning causing global warming to take the necessary steps to stop it and reverse it.
Rohrabacher explained that the answer he got does not reveal that perhaps only 5-10 percent of all greenhouse gases are made by humans even if the human contribution has increased by 90 percent over the last 100 years.2
What this fails to comprehend is that, that "5-10 percent" is enough to push up global warming and it is certainly going to rise way above "5-10 percent" if the leadership does nothing, which is what the corporatist Rohrabacher is pushing.
Rohrabacher is a lousy steward and has no business being a leader of human kind. Anyone who follows him or supports him in his rebellion against God is headed to hell.
1 Juliet Eilperin. "Humans Faulted For Global Warming: International Panel Of Scientists Sounds Dire Alarm." Washington Post. Saturday, February 3, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201754.html. (last accessed: Saturday, February 03, 2007). Return to text body.
2 "Lawmakers Question Scientists About Climate Change." FOX News. February 8, 2007. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250980,00.html. (last accessed: Thursday, February 08, 2007). Return to text body.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)