We don't know who wrote the following, but it sure is denial of the obvious.
Using Fires To Sell Global Warming: Climate Change: We don't know which is weirder — Dennis Kucinich's belief in UFOs or the House holding hearings on Harry Reid's claim that global warming caused California's wildfires. The "scientific link" doesn't exist.
We thought we had heard the ultimate absurdity when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid politicized a tragedy the other day by claiming, "One of the reasons we had the fires in California is global warming."
Then came the announcement that the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was holding a hearing today (Thursday) "examining the scientific link between a changing climate and the frequency and intensity of wildfires."
The committee, chaired by warming zealot Ed Markey, D-Mass., was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it says, "to increase the visibility and priority given to America's oil dependence and global warming challenges."
More accurately, it was formed to rake the Bush administration over the coals, so to speak, for its reluctance to embrace Kyoto.
The media has done its part to fan the flames of controversy.
On Oct. 20, CBS' "60 Minutes" began with a segment called "The Age of Mega-Fires," a piece clearly intended to fuel the blame-global-warming argument.
CNN's Anderson Cooper plugged the series "Planet in Peril" by saying, "Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected."
He forgot arson, the cause of at least two of the major California fires. That's man-made warming.
As Steven Milloy, adjunct scholar at the Competitive Industry and founder of junkscience.com, points out, the history of California wildfires proves no link to warming-induced drought.
First, he notes, during the period of 1900-2005, during which global temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit, precipitation has actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude, which includes California, according to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
During that interval there have been moderate-to-severe drought conditions in Southern California during 34 of those years, or about one-third of the time. An analysis of those years, using data provided by the National Climatic Data Center, provides a very interesting pattern of drought.
Seven occurred from 1900 to 1940, the period when most of last century's warming occurred.
But 11 of those drought years occurred from 1941 to 1975, when temperatures were dropping so fast that major news magazines like Newsweek were actually warning of a new ice age.
From 1976 to 1990, when global temperatures rose back to their 1940 levels, there were 8 drought years.
Since then, there have been another seven years of moderate-to-severe drought. If there's a pattern there of warming-induced climate change, we fail to see it.
The Santa Ana winds that fanned the flames didn't come out of the exhaust pipe of anyone's SUV.
We would suggest that the extent of the tragedy has been enhanced by the anti-logging and anti-thinning agenda of the greenies — an agenda that encourages overgrowth and prohibits sensible forest management, including the removal of dead trees as well as underbrush that is said to be the habitat of endangered species who ironically become crispy critters.
The same naturally warm and dry conditions in which these fires occur are the same conditions that bring people to Southern California to build their homes in fire-prone areas in the first place.
If, as some point 15ut, the fires in California these days seem "so much worse than in the past" it's for that very reason: The Golden State's population has soared in the past decade or so by nearly 10 million. Hundreds of thousands of new homes have been built in the state's brush-filled mountains, canyons and arroyos.
But when Democrats suggest it is our inattention to allegedly man-induced global warming that is the culprit, they're only generating more hot air that we don't need.
Look, you cannot pollute and pollute and pollute without having any consequences. What this person is saying is no brighter than someone saying that there is no nuclear waste from nuclear power plants or that Love Canal never existed or that smoking indoors around your children is not unhealthy for them or that mercury in fish is good to eat or on and on.
This person was paid by selfish, greedy, evil-minded people to write what he or she wrote. The author makes a living denying the obvious, simply seeking to postpone the day when the vast majority of people wake up.
The reason is because when they wake up completely, the rich won't be able to remain so. That's what's going on here. It's as clear as human-induced, reckless climate change.
Anyone who falls for this garbage being spewed by the unidentified author is unworthy.
The unidentified author is a terrible steward of the earth. He or she is headed for hell and wanting to take the entire planet and all of humanity there too just so he or she can have a little bit more reward from evil here and now before an eternity of pain and suffering brought on as a direct consequence of that same evil.
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)